Amicus Curiae Brief — Cutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.

NO. 25-238, VIDE 25-566

In the Supreme Court of the United States

CUTBERTO VIRAMONTES, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

v.

COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL.,

Respondents.

__________________________

EDDIE GRANT, JR., ET AL.,

Petitioners,

V.

RONNELL HIGGINS, ET AL.,

Respondents.

__________________________

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Courts of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Second Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

AND WESTERN STATES SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Gregory C. Champagne

Counsel of Record

Maurice E. Bostick

ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE

260 Judge Edward Dufresne Parkway

Luling, LA 70070

(985) 783-2883

sheriffgc@stcharlessheriff.org

August 31, 2026

SUPREME COURT PRESS

Counsel for Amici Curiae

♦

(888) 958-5705

♦

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE AMICI

CURIAE ................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3

I.

Law-Abiding Citizens Need Reliable

Weapons for Self-Defense ................................. 3

II. AR-15s Are Commonly Owned and

Incredibly Popular ............................................ 4

III. The Second Amendment Guarantees the

Right of Law-Abiding Citizens to Use

Arms for Self-Defense ...................................... 7

IV. Any restrictions on the Second Amendment

Must be Justified by This Nation’s Historical

Tradition of Firearm Regulation ................... 10

V. Banning a Weapon in Common Use Today

Which is Not Dangerous or Unusual Violates

the Second Amendment ................................. 16

VI. Banning the Most Popular Self-Defense

Weapon Causes Problems for Law

Enforcement ................................................... 16

VII. Armed Self-Defense is Often Needed for

Law-Abiding Citizens ................................... 17

CONCLUSION.......................................................... 19

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

District of Columbia v. Heller,

554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783,

171 L.Ed.2d 637 (June 26, 2008) .............. 7, 8, 11

Garland v. Cargill,

602 U.S. 406, 144 S. Ct. 1613,

219 L.Ed.2d 151 (2024)......................................... 7

Harrel v. Raoul,

144 S. Ct. 2491 (July 2, 2024) .............................. 6

Heller v. District of Columbia,

670 F. 3d 1244, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314

(CADC 2011) ........................................ 7-11, 14-16

Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.,

366 U.S. 36, 81 S. Ct. 997,

6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961) ................................... 10, 14

McCulloch v. Maryland,

17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed.579

(1819) ................................................................... 9

McDonald v. City of Chicago,

561 U.S. 742 (2010) ........................................... 14

New York Rifle Association v. Bruen,

597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111,

213 L.Ed.2d 387 (June 23, 2022) ............. 7-14, 16

United States v. Jones,

565 U.S. 400, 132 S. Ct. 945,

181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) ....................................... 9

United States v. Miller,

307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816,

83 L.Ed.1206, 1939-1 C.B. 373 (1939) .............. 13

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.)

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Page

U.S. Const. amend. I ................................................... 9

U.S. Const. amend. II .................................... 2, 4, 7-19

U.S. Const. amend. IV ................................................ 9

U.S. Const. amend. XIV .............................................. 7

STATUTES

26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4)..................................................... 1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Gary Kleck & Jongyeon Tark,

Resisting Crime: the Effects of Victim

Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, 42

CRIMINOLOGY 861 (2004) ................................... 18

Heritage Foundation,

How Does an Armed People Secure a Free

State?, https://www.heritage.org/theessential-second-amendment/how-doesarmed-people-secure-free-state......................... 17

Lawrence Southwich Jr.,

Self-Defense With Guns: The

Consequences, 28 J. CRIM. JUSTICE 351

(2000) ................................................................. 18

Paul Bedard,

Georgetown Professor: AR-15 ‘Commonly

Owned’ and ‘Incredibly Popular’,

WASHINGTON EXAMINER,

https://gisme.georgetown.edu/news/george

town-professor-ar-15-commonly-ownedand-incredibly-popular/ ....................................... 5

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.)

Page

Stephen M. Schnebly,

An Examination of the Impact of Victim,

Offender, and Situational Attributes on

the Deterrent Effect of Defensive Gun Use:

A Research Note, 19 JUSTICE QUARTERLY

(2002) ................................................................. 18

William English,

2021 National Firearms Survey,

Georgetown McDonough School of

Business Research Paper No. 3887145

(Last Updated July 13, 2021), https://

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=3887145# ....................................... 18

1

The National Sheriffs’ Association and the Western

States Sheriffs’ Association respectfully submit this

amici curiae brief.1

IDENTITY AND INTEREST

OF THE AMICI CURIAE

The NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION (the “NSA”)

is a non-profit association formed under 26 U.S.C.

501(c)(4). Formed in 1940 the NSA seeks to promote the

fair and efficient administration of criminal justice

throughout the United States and in particular to

advance and protect the Office of Sheriff throughout

the United States. The NSA has over 13,000 members

and is the advocate for 3,083 sheriffs throughout the

United States.

The NSA also works to promote the public interest

goals and policies of law enforcement throughout the

nation. It participates in the judicial process where

the vital interests of law enforcement and its members

are affected.

The WESTERN STATES SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION is

an organization representing over 1,100 Sheriffs in 19

western states. The association is dedicated to assisting

Sheriffs with federal and state legislative issues,

addressing policy matters, and promoting the strength

1 This brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for

any party. No person or entity other than amici made a monetary

contribution to this brief’s preparation or submission.

2

and effectiveness of local law enforcement. Western

Sheriffs face unique challenges, including vast rural

jurisdictions, border security concerns, public lands

management, and resource constraints.

The mission of the Western States Sheriff’s

Association is to assist Sheriffs and their Offices with

Federal and State legislative issues, address policy

and procedural matters, develop guidelines to promote

uniformity in matters that are important to Sheriffs

of the Western United States and to work together to

keep the office of Sheriff strong.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of

law-abiding citizens to bear arms for self-defense.

This right can only be infringed as to a particular type

of weapon that is “dangerous” or “uncommon,” or if

historical traditions of prohibiting such weapons exist.

The AR-15 rifle is just like any other semi-automatic

rifle. It only fires one round of ammunition for each

pull of the trigger. Its ammunition is no more powerful

than most semi-automatic rifles. In addition, the AR15 rifle is the most common civilian rifle and is the

most popular firearm in America, owned by 24 million

Americans.

Any ban of an entire class of arms that is

currently overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for

self-defense violates the Second Amendment right to

bear arms. No historical traditions banning such

common arms exist justifying such a ban.

3

ARGUMENT

I.

Law-Abiding Citizens Need Reliable Weapons

for Self-Defense

Law enforcement agencies generally, and the

National Sheriffs’ Association and Western States

Sheriffs’ Association, specifically, support the legal

right of citizens to use reasonable and proportional

deadly force in self-defense when faced with an

imminent, credible threat of death or serious bodily

harm. Home invasions and other violent crimes occur

daily and innocent victims suffer serious assaults,

rapes, kidnappings, and deaths as a result. If the

victims are fortunate enough to have sufficient time

to call 911, that does not stop the threat of violence.

Law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at

once and cannot automatically appear instantaneously

at the scene of the crime. Response times may vary

from a few minutes to half an hour depending on

manpower and geographical area. And a violent

crime, especially a home invasion, can occur in seconds.

The only viable option for an innocent citizen to have

immediate protection is to have a weapon for selfdefense.

An AR-15 is one of the most popular guns owned

by millions of Americans for home defense. It is a

semi-automatic weapon just like many hunting rifles.

It shoots one round with each pull of the trigger. It is

not a “machine gun” or an “assault rifle” or a “military

rifle.” It does not have more lethal or faster bullets

than other common rifles. It does not automatically

4

fire numerous rounds with a pull of the trigger. It is

not an unusually dangerous weapon.

Law abiding citizens with an AR-15 are not a threat

to anyone. Millions of Americans own such weapons

for self-defense and have a Second Amendment right

to do so. Making such weapons illegal for law abiding

citizens will not stop criminals from possessing weapons

to commit violent crimes. Violent criminals generally

do not shop at gun stores to legally purchase weapons

to commit violent crimes. They generally steal weapons

or obtain them on the black market. The criminals will

have weapons. Criminals don’t follow gun laws. When

we disarm law-abiding citizens, we make them vulnerable. Banning law abiding citizens from having AR-15

type rifles will do nothing to keep weapons out of the

hands of violent criminals. Such a ban will only disarm

innocent victims who need protection.

Just as Israel banned its citizens from having

semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 for self-protection before the October 7 massacre, now local governments want to ban such rifles for self-protection. Had

Israeli citizens had such weapons, hundreds of lives

would have been saved by stopping the violent criminals

from wreaking havoc against defenseless men, women

and children. Disarming law abiding citizens does not

prevent violent crime, it enables violent crime.

II. AR-15s Are Commonly Owned and Incredibly

Popular

AR-15s are commonly owned and incredibly

popular, said Assistant Georgetown Professor William

English who conducted a survey of AR-15 owners.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER, Georgetown Professor: AR-15

5

‘Commonly Owned’ and ‘Incredibly Popular’ by Paul

Bedard.2

In the national debate over banning AR-15-style

rifles, there has been a noted lack of information other

than anecdotal and heavily biased reports, according

to author Paul Bedard.

According to Bedard, on the gun ban side, led by

President Joe Biden, the rifle is an “assault weapon”

used to kill people. On the gun fan side, led by the

National Rifle Association, it’s a tool for hunting and

plinking just like every other rifle. But the truth is,

there has been little scholarly study of it and other

firearms since 1994, the year the so-called “assault

weapon” ban was put into place by President Bill

Clinton, which lapsed 10 years later.

Enter political economist and assistant professor

William English of Georgetown University’s McDonough

School of Business. Long interested in issues surrounding guns, he just headed a massive survey of nearly

17,000 firearms users to come up with the most

detailed portrait of today’s owners, users, and their

firearms, according to Bedard.

According to Bedard, the bottom line from English’s

“National Firearms Survey” is that gun-owning is

common, the AR-15 really is the most popular firearm

in America, and its club of owners is incredibly diverse.

The survey he headed reached out to over 54,000

and was narrowed down to 16,708 gun owners who

2 https://gisme.georgetown.edu/news/georgetown-professor-ar15-commonly-owned-and-incredibly-popular/

6

coughed up a wealth of information about what they

own and what they do with their guns.

For example, English confirmed that 81.4 million

own guns, a third of them have used a weapon to

defend themselves or their property in 1.6 million

incidents per year, and 52% of those who own a gun

carry one for self-defense at times.

He found that some 24 million have owned a

total of 44 million AR-style rifles and 39 million own

extended magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. His

survey estimated that there are 542 million extended

magazines in the United States, ending any debate

that the AR and other semi-automatic firearms are

rare and just used by mass killers.

“These are just incredibly popular firearms,” he

said, adding that “they are commonly owned, commonly

used.”

“At the end of the day, it is a rifle that I think is

very easy to shoot, it’s very easy to control, not a lot of

recoil. I could see it also kind of being like an updated

.22 for, in terms of plinking, a firearm you can kind of

do a little bit of everything with: lightweight, intuitive,

but high-performance, accurate, and easy for defense.

It certainly has advantages there. So it’s a good gun,

and to see it become widely owned, I suppose, makes

sense in that context,” said English.

There is a reason Justice Thomas called the AR15 “America’s most common civilian rifle.” Harrel v.

Raoul, 144 S. Ct. 2491, 2493 (July 2, 2024) (Concurring

Opinion on denial of writ of certiorari). “The AR-15 is

the most popular semi-automatic rifle” in America

and is therefore undeniably “in common use today.”

Id. at 2492, citing Heller v. District of Columbia, 670

7

F. 3d 1244, 1287, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (CADC 2011)

(Kavanaugh, J., dissenting); see also Garland v. Cargill,

602 U.S. 406, 430-431, 144 S. Ct. 1613, 219 L.Ed.2d

151 (2024) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (describing

“semiautomatic rifles” such as the AR-15 as “commonly

available”).

III. The Second Amendment Guarantees the

Right of Law-Abiding Citizens to Use Arms

for Self-Defense

This Court has already clarified the test to

determine whether a law impinging upon the Second

Amendment right to bear arms is constitutional in

New York Rifle Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142

S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (June 23, 2022) and

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct.

2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (June 26, 2008).

In Bruen, this Court held: Where the State of New

York issued public-carry licenses only when an applicant

demonstrated a special need for self-defense, the State’s

licensing regime violated the Constitution because the

Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an

individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense

outside the home. A State could not prevent lawabiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns

because they had not demonstrated a special need for

self-defense.

In Heller, this Court held: District’s ban on handgun

possession in the home and its prohibition against

rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for

the purposes of immediate self-defense violated the

Second Amendment. The Court held that the Second

Amendment protected an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to

8

use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such

as self-defense within the home. In Bruen and Heller,

this Court clarified the test to determine whether a

law impinging upon the Second Amendment right to

bear arms is constitutional.

As this Court stated in Bruen:

If the last decade of Second Amendment

litigation has taught this Court anything, it

is that federal courts tasked with making

such difficult empirical judgments regarding

firearm regulations under the banner of

“intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the

determinations of legislatures. But while

that judicial deference to legislative interest

balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere,

appropriate—it is not deference that the

Constitution demands here. The Second

Amendment “is the very product of an interest

balancing by the people” and it “surely

elevates above all other interests the right of

law-abiding, responsible citizens to use

arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U.S., at

635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. It is

this balance—struck by the traditions of the

American people—that demands our unqualified deference.

Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387

(June 23, 2022).

The Bruen Court explained that the regulatory

challenges posed by firearms today are not always the

same as those that preoccupied the Founders in

1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Bruen,

597 U.S. at 27. Fortunately, the Founders created a

9

Constitution—and a Second Amendment—“intended

to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be

adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Bruen,

597 U.S. at 27-28, citing, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17

U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 415, 4 L.Ed.579 (1819).

Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can,

and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the

Founders specifically anticipated. Bruen, 597 U.S. at

28, citing, United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404405, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (holding

that installation of a tracking device was “a physical

intrusion [that] would have been considered a ‘search’

within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when

it was adopted”).

In Bruen this Court stated:

We have already recognized in Heller at least

one way in which the Second Amendment’s

historically fixed meaning applies to new

circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does

not apply “only [to] those arms in existence

in the 18th century.” 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.

Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. “Just as the First

Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies

to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments

that constitute bearable arms, even those

that were not in existence at the time of the

founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even

though the Second Amendment’s definition

of “arms” is fixed according to its historical

understanding, that general definition covers

10

modern instruments that facilitate armed

self-defense.

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 28.

An AR-15 is just like any other semiautomatic

hunting rifle and is the quintessential modern instrument that facilitates armed self-defense. As such, the

Second Amendment protects citizens’ rights to own and

bear these arms.

IV. Any restrictions on the Second Amendment

Must be Justified by This Nation’s Historical

Tradition of Firearm Regulation

In keeping with Heller, the Bruen Court held that

when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an

individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively

protects that conduct. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. To justify

its regulation, the government may not simply posit

that the regulation promotes an important interest.

Id. Rather, the government must demonstrate that

the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s

historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. Only if a

firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s

historical tradition may a court conclude that the

individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Id., citing, Konigsberg

v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50, n. 10, 81 S. Ct. 997,

6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961).

This Court in Bruen summarized Heller’s methodological approach to the Second Amendment.

In Heller, this Court began with a “textual analysis”

focused on the “‘normal and ordinary’” meaning of the

Second Amendment’s language. Bruen, 597 at 20,

citing, 554 U.S., at 576-577, 578, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171

11

L.Ed.2d 637. That analysis suggested that the

Amendment’s operative clause—“the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms . . . shall not be

infringed”—“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess

and carry weapons in case of confrontation” that does

not depend on service in the militia. Bruen, 597 at 20,

citing, 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d

637.

From there, the Court assessed whether its

initial conclusion was “confirmed by the historical

background of the Second Amendment.” Id., citing,

554 U.S. at 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. The

Court looked to history because “it has always been

widely

understood

that

the

Second

Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” Id. The

Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel

principle but rather codified a right inherited from our

English ancestors.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, citing, 554

U.S. at 599, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. After

surveying English history dating from the late 1600s,

along with American colonial views leading up to the

founding, this Court found “no doubt, on the basis of

both text and history, that the Second Amendment

conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, citing, 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.

Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637.

This Court then canvassed the historical record

and found yet further confirmation. Bruen, 597 U.S.

at 20. That history included the “analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded

and immediately followed adoption of the Second

Amendment,” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, citing, 554 U.S.

at 600-601, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, and

“how the Second Amendment was interpreted from

12

immediately after its ratification through the end of

the 19th century.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, citing, 554

U.S. at 605, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. When

the principal dissent charged that the latter category

of sources was illegitimate “postenactment legislative

history,” this Court clarified that “examination of a

variety of legal and other sources to determine the public

understanding of a legal text in the period after its

enactment or ratification” was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, citing,

554 U.S. at 605, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637

(majority opinion).

In assessing the postratification history, this Court

looked to four different types of sources. Id. at 21. First,

the Court reviewed “[t]hree important founding-era

legal scholars [who] interpreted the Second Amendment

in published writings.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21, citing,

554 U.S. at 605, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637.

Second, the Court looked to “19th-century cases that

interpreted the Second Amendment” and found that

they “universally support an individual right” to keep

and bear arms. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21, citing, 554 U.S.

at 610, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637. Third, the Court

examined the “discussion of the Second Amendment in

Congress and in public discourse” after the Civil War,

“as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves.” Bruen, 597 U.S.

at 21, citing, 554 U.S. at 614, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171

L.Ed.2d 637. Fourth, the Court considered how postCivil War commentators understood the right. Bruen,

597 U.S. at 21, citing, 554 U.S. at 616-619, 128 S. Ct.

2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637.

After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, the

13

Court also relied on the historical understanding of

the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise

of that right. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. The Court noted that,

“[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second

Amendment is not unlimited.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21,

citing, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d

637. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,

commentators and courts routinely explained that the

right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon

whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever

purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the

carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the

Second Amendment protects the possession and use

of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’”

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21, citing, 554 U.S. at 627, 128 S. Ct.

2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, (first citing 4 W. Blackstone,

Commentaries on the Laws of England 148-149

(1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.

174, 179, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed.1206, 1939-1 C.B. 373

(1939)).

Thus, this Court concluded that its earlier historical

analysis sufficed to show that the Second Amendment

did not countenance a “complete prohibition” on the

use of “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans

for self-defense in the home.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 22,

citing, 554 U.S. at 629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d

637.

In Bruen, this Court held:

We reiterate that the standard for applying

the Second Amendment is as follows: When

the Second Amendment’s plain text covers

an individual’s conduct, the Constitution

presumptively protects that conduct. The

14

government must then justify its regulation

by demonstrating that it is consistent with the

Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that

the individual’s conduct falls outside the

Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The test that we set forth in Heller and apply

today requires courts to assess whether

modern firearms regulations are consistent

with the Second Amendment’s text and

historical understanding.

Bruen, 597 at 24, citing, Konigsberg, 366 U.S., at 50,

n. 10, 81 S. Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105.

While this Court in Bruen did not now provide an

exhaustive survey of the features that render regulations relevantly similar under the Second Amendment,

the Court did think that Heller and McDonald point

toward at least two metrics: how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed selfdefense. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29. As this Court stated in

Heller and repeated in McDonald, “individual selfdefense is ‘the central component’ of the Second

Amendment right.” Id. citing, McDonald, 561 U.S., at

767, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (quoting Heller,

554 U.S., at 599, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637); see

also id., Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171

L.Ed.2d 637 (“the inherent right of self-defense has

been central to the Second Amendment right”).

Therefore, whether modern and historical regulations

impose a comparable burden on the right of armed

self-defense and whether that burden is comparably

justified are “‘central’” considerations when engaging

in an analogical inquiry. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29, citing,

McDonald, 561 U.S., at 767, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177

15

L.Ed.2d 894 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S., at 599, 128 S.

Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637).

As stated by this Court in Heller, when the handgun

was the most preferred firearm in the nation:

. . . [T]he inherent right of self-defense has

been central to the Second Amendment right.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of

an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that

lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense

of self, family, and property is most acute.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny that

we have applied to enumerated constitutional

rights, banning from the home “the most

preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and

use for protection of one’s home and family,”

478 F.3d at 400, would fail constitutional

muster.

Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-629.

In sum, the Heller Court found that “handguns

are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for

self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition

of their use is invalid.” Id. at 629. Accordingly, to now

ban an entire class of “arms” that is currently

overwhelmingly chosen by American society for selfdefense, the AR-15, and completely prohibit its use

would fail constitutional muster.

16

V.

Banning a Weapon in Common Use Today

Which is Not Dangerous or Unusual Violates

the Second Amendment

As outlined above, an AR-15 is a weapon in

common use today. It is not dangerous or unusual and

has all the same characteristics of any other hunting

rifle which fires one round with one pull of the trigger.

Its ammunition is not more powerful or more dangerous

than many other rifles. Based on the tests under

Bruen and Heller, an AR-15 cannot be excluded under

the Second Amendment as a dangerous or unusual

weapon not commonly used. Such an exclusion is not

consistent with historical traditions of prohibitions on

arms and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

VI. Banning the Most Popular Self-Defense

Weapon Causes Problems for Law Enforcement

Banning the most popular self-defense weapon

that 24 million Americans have legally purchased will

cause added friction between law enforcement officers

and citizens.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to

grant citizens the right to bear arms against tyranny

of government. If our government is now allowed to

seize the most popular weapon citizens own for selfdefense, many citizens will not submit peacefully to

such a government overreach. Law enforcement will

bear the brunt of this conflict.

Rather than banning law abiding citizens from

owning the most popular rifle, the National Sheriffs’

Association and the Western States Sheriffs’ Association

welcome the help of such armed citizens in fighting

17

crime and protecting themselves to ease the burden

on law enforcement.

VII.

Armed Self-Defense is Often Needed for

Law-Abiding Citizens

In a civil democratic society, citizens expect the

government to maintain law and order and protect

them from criminal threats. In a modern context, this

usually means that governments employ large,

professional police forces. However, under the natural

law—and, as a matter of legal reality in the United

States and most Western countries—citizens do not

completely cede their right to self-defense to the

government. The Second Amendment ensures that,

when the government cannot or will not be there in time

to protect individual rights from criminal threats,

private citizens have meaningful ways of fighting

back and protecting themselves and their loved ones.

In a Heritage Foundation article entitled How Does

an Armed People Secure a Free State?,3 references

provide data regarding defensive gun use. According

to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, almost every major study on the issue

has found that Americans use their firearms defensively

between 500,000 and 3 million times per year. More

recently, data collected by the 2021 National Firearms

Survey indicates an annual average of 1.6 million

defensive gun uses.4 The best, most comprehensive

3 https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/howdoes-armed-people-secure-free-state

4 William English, 2021 National Firearms Survey, Georgetown

Mcdonough School of Business Research Paper No. 3887145

18

studies on crime victimization in the United States

have also found that victims who forcefully resist

crimes are less likely to suffer serious injury or

property loss than those who do not offer resistance.5

This is true even when individuals face disadvantageous

circumstances, such as being outnumbered or

confronted by armed assailants.6

This data highlights the importance of and the

prevalence of defensive gun use in America. Citizens

need a reliable, easy to use defensive weapon for selfdefense. The AR-15 rifle is a commonly used weapon

in America and is the most popular weapon chosen by

Americans for self-defense in the home. And because

the AR-15 is not a dangerous or unusual weapon, the

Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens’

right to bear such arms for self-defense.

(Last Updated July 13, 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/

papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145#

5 See, e.g., Gary Kleck & Jongyeon Tark, Resisting Crime: the

Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, 42

CRIMINOLOGY 861 (2004); Stephen M. Schnebly, An Examination

of the Impact of Victim, Offender, and Situational Attributes on

the Deterrent Effect of Defensive Gun Use: A Research Note, 19

JUSTICE QUARTERLY 377 (2002); Lawrence Southwich Jr., SelfDefense With Guns: The Consequences, 28 J. CRIM. JUSTICE 351

(2000). Studies with contrary findings universally rely on

irrelevant tests and fail to control for key confounders that

consistently bias results against the effectiveness of armed

resistance. See Gary Kleck, How Hemenway and Solnick

Distorted the Effectiveness of Defensive Gun Use (Aug. 29, 2020),

Https://Papers.ssrn.com/Sol3/Papers.cfm?Abstract_id=3659333.

6 Gary Kleck & Jongyeon Tark, Resisting Crime: the Effects of

Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, 42 CRIMINOLOGY 861,

897 (2004).

19

CONCLUSION

AR-15 rifles are the most commonly used selfdefense rifles in homes. About 24 million Americans

have legally purchased these rifles. These weapons

are not dangerous or unusual as they operate just like

any other semi-automatic rifle. One bullet is fired

with one pull of the trigger. The ammunition is not

more powerful than most rifles. No historical traditions

of prohibiting a commonly used weapon exist as to a

non-dangerous weapon. Accordingly, any prohibition

against AR-15 rifles violates the Second Amendment

right to bear arms.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory C. Champagne

Gregory C. Champagne

Counsel of Record

Maurice E. Bostick

ST. CHARLES PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE

260 Judge Edward Dufresne Parkway

Luling, LA 70070

(985) 783-2883

sheriffgc@stcharlessheriff.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

August 31, 2026