r/progun

One thing I haven't seen many people talking about since SCOTUS granted cert in Viramontes v. Cook County is that this case could end up implicating much more than just AR-15s.

Most of the discussion has focused on "common use." That's understandable, because the petition asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15 platform rifles, and AR-15s are almost certainly the most commonly owned rifles in America.

But here's what I think is interesting.

The government's defense has never really been that AR-15s are not in common use. Instead, Cook County and Illinois have consistently argued that AR-15s are constitutionally similar to military weapons, particularly the M16 and machine guns. In other words, their position is that even widespread civilian ownership doesn't matter because these rifles belong in the same constitutional category as weapons that Heller suggested may be prohibited.

That's also why I think this case may be about more than just "common use."

The Seventh Circuit in Viramontes didn't really perform a fresh constitutional analysis. It simply held that it was bound by its earlier decision in Bevis v. City of Naperville.

And Bevis is built around the idea that AR-15s are sufficiently similar to military arms that they fall outside the Second Amendment's protection, despite their popularity.

That leaves the Supreme Court with a couple of possible paths.

The narrow approach would be straightforward. The Court could simply say that AR-15s are plainly in common use by law-abiding citizens and are therefore protected under Heller. If that's all it says, the opinion would probably be limited to semiautomatic rifles. Maybe even defining "Arm" to address the magazine bans... Who knows...

But if the Court decides to address the Seventh circuit's opinion, things become more interesting.

The Court may have to explain whether constitutional protection can disappear simply because a firearm is a "military arm", which they say in Bevis that Heller already stated can be banned.

> It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That sentence has been enormously influential, but it is also dicta. Lower courts have relied on it for years as a major justification for upholding assault weapon bans. Bevis is one of the clearest examples of that.

If the Court decides that it has to clarify what that dicta actually means, or how much weight lower courts should give it, then the opinion could have implications well beyond AR-15s.

I think is possible is that, in rejecting or accepting the government's theory, the Court may end up saying something important about why machine guns can be treated differently. If it does, that reasoning could influence future litigation involving the federal machine gun ban.

At this point, it's all speculation. We still have to see the merits briefs and hear oral argument. The Court could ultimately decide the case on much narrower grounds.

Still, I think people should be paying just as much attention to how the government defends the ban as to whether AR-15s are in common use. If the Court answers the government's theory instead of taking the easy path, this opinion could end up being one of the most important Second Amendment decisions since Bruen.

You can read the relevant opinions too
Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 23-1353 (7th Cir. 2023): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-1353/23-1353-2023-11-03.html

ATF has a proposed rule open for comment: RIN 1140-AB05 / ATF-2026-0266. It would modernize non-over-the-counter firearm transfers by allowing firearm purchases to be completed remotely through an FFL, while still keeping background checks, identity verification, and recordkeeping.

As many of you know, the process creates unnecessary burdens for law-abiding buyers, especially parents, military members with unusual schedules, shift workers, people with long commutes, and those who do not live close to an FFL. This is even worse in the 13 states plus D.C. with multi-day waiting periods, where buyers may need two separate trips just to complete one lawful transfer. This not only burdens buyers but sellers as well. I can tell you with 100% confidence that government agencies review each public comment made. Please do not take for granted the opportunity to write a supporting comment.

A comment can be made here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2026-0266-0001

Here is a draft supporting comment:

>I support ATF’s proposed rule, RIN 1140-AB05 / ATF-2026-0266. Current in-person requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for both buyers and sellers given today’s technology, security systems, and remote identity-verification options. This burden is even greater in the 13 states plus D.C. with multi-day waiting periods, where buyers may need two separate trips to complete one lawful transfer, causing more time off work, childcare issues, travel costs, and coordination burdens for both buyers and sellers. Requiring in-person presence for every transaction, when secure digital identity verification and background checks can accomplish the same safety goals remotely, creates a soft barrier to exercising a constitutional right

Comments are open until August 6, 2026 on Regulations.gov under ATF-2026-0266 / RIN 1140-AB05.

My guess is this will be the "totally not staged" sequence of events for this case, leading up to and following.

We will eventually get a of a mass shooter that the FBI or some Blue Police Department knew about for years, but didn't act on it. The media will talk about this non-stop, and it will be weeks or a month away from this case. The case will then gain notoriety if it hasn't already.

The blue team's politicians will then bitch about the case and use it as ammunition to try and bully and intimidate SCOTUS into ruling against our favor.

Once SCOTUS rules AWB's are unconstitutional, the Blue Team politicians will bitch about how SC got it wrong. They will call for court packing, and minutes after the ruling is made, the crisis actors on Bloomberg's payroll will make a sob story on the steps of the Supreme Court crying about how these "wuh wuh wuh weapons of war" belong on a "battlefield".

Unfortunately, many blue areas will probably take down their AWB's and just make a new ban in everything but name only too.

A vending machine hummed softly while the sidewalk rain drummed in the distance.

While this article focuses on New Jersey it would be applicable to all states that have banned ARs.

The two assault rifle bans are consolidated for oral argument.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post