DOJ Backs Gun Owners At Court
The federal government has formally sided with gun owners against state bans on the country’s most popular rifle, ahead of a December argument that could dismantle assault-weapon bans nationwide.
A ruling that the AR-15 is a protected “arm in common use” would reach every assault-weapon ban in the country, not just the two before the Court. The most consequential Second Amendment case since Bruen now has the Justice Department on the challengers’ side.
Where things stand
SCOTUS set the argument. The justices consolidated two cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, for one hour of argument on December 2, on whether the Constitution protects the right to own AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles.
DOJ filed for the gun owners. Solicitor General John Sauer’s brief, filed September 4, argues flatly that the bans “are unconstitutional.”
The reach is national. The AR-15 is lawful in 40 states, and only 10 states plus the District of Columbia ban it, so a decision for the owners would jeopardize every one of those bans.
The argument
- The rifle is common, not unusual. The DOJ calls the AR-15 “the quintessential example of an arm that is in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” which, under Heller and Bruen, is the line between protected and bannable.
- The tradition test cuts one way. The brief argues the nation’s history allows banning only “dangerous and unusual” weapons, and a rifle owned by millions is neither.
- The government put its weight in. A 32-page filing from the Solicitor General, the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer, signals how far the administration will go on this question.
A rifle owned by millions of Americans is, by definition, in common use, and that is the whole ballgame under the Court’s own precedent.
The precedent
Heller drew the line. The 2008 ruling protected arms “in common use,” and the fight ever since has been over what counts.
Bruen sharpened it. The 2022 decision demanded that gun laws match the nation’s historical tradition, the framework DOJ now turns against the bans.
Six circuits went the other way. Several appeals courts upheld these bans, which the challengers say defied Heller, teeing up the Supreme Court to settle it.
In Their Own Words
“This is one of the most important Second Amendment cases in American history.” Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition.
What The Other Side Is Doing & How To Neutralize It
Everytown Law is leading the defense of the bans, insisting they are “critical public safety measures” and urging the Court to uphold them.
That framing collides with the Court’s own “common use” test, which the Firearms Policy Coalition is pressing: a rifle owned in the tens of millions cannot be both “in common use” and “dangerous and unusual,” and public-safety slogans do not change that constitutional line. Learn more about this effort HERE.
Looking ahead
The gun-control movement spent a decade insisting the AR-15 is a weapon of war with no place in civilian hands. The Constitution, as the Court has read it, asks a narrower and more honest question: do ordinary law-abiding Americans actually own this thing in large numbers?
They plainly do, which is why the ban states are defending an increasingly untenable position. Having the Justice Department file on the side of gun owners is not a small thing; it puts the full weight of the United States behind the plain text of the Second Amendment. December will tell whether the Court finishes what Heller started.
-The Editors
Liberty · Upstream of the Swamp · September 24, 2026
