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

Supreme Court briefSep 2, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 25-238 & 25-566

In the Supreme Court of

the United States

CUTBERTO VIRAMONTES, ET AL.,

Petitioners

COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL.,

Respondents

__________________________

EDDIE GRANT, JR., ET AL.,

Petitioners

RONNELL HIGGINS, ET AL.,

Respondents

__________________________

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND AND SEVENTH CIRCUITS

__________________________

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE

SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT

OF PETITIONERS AND REVERSAL

STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*

3925 Chain Bridge Rd., Suite 403

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 352-7276

protell@aol.com

*Counsel of Record

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... iii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.......................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 1

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

THE AR-15 IS THE HISTORICAL

EVOLUTION OF RIFLE DESIGNS

IN COMMON USE THAT

ORIGINATED 125 YEARS AGO ................. 3

Introduced in 1964, the AR-15

Sporter Has Versatile Features

that Have Rendered it to be in

Common Use by the Public ................ 3

The AR-15 Is Just the Latest

Evolution in Over a Century’s

Tradition of Common Use of

Semiautomatic Rifles ......................... 9

The Term “Assault Weapon” Has

No Objective Meaning and Has No

Constitutional Significance ............. 11

II.

BANNING RIFLES IS INCONSISTENT

WITH THIS NATION’S HISTORICAL

TRADITION OF FIREARM

REGULATION ........................................... 14

The English Freeman Had a

Right and Duty to Be Armed With

Effective Weapons ............................ 15

Effective Arms Were Essential

For Survival for the Colonists ......... 18

The Colonists Asserted Their

Right to Their Militia Arms in

Defense of Liberty ............................ 20

The Second Amendment Was

Understood to Guarantee a

Robust Concept of “Arms” ................ 22

The Right to “Arms” Expanded

as the Republic and Technology

Grew ................................................. 27

In the Early Republic, Prohibitions

on Arms Were Considered

Infringements on the Right ............. 28

The Fourteenth Amendment Was

Understood to Protect Common

“Military” Firearms .......................... 30

CONCLUSION ..……………………………………...33

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Barnett v. Raoul, 180 F.4th 1035

(7th Cir. 2026) ........................................................ 5

Bevis v. City of Naperville, Ill., 85 F.4th 1175

(7th Cir. 2023) .................................................. 8, 13

Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438

(4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, Snope v. Brown,

145 S. Ct. 1534 (2025) ............................................ 4

Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating

Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) ................................... 11

District of Columbia v. Heller,

554 U.S. 570 (2008) .................................. 12, 13, 15

Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244

(D.C. Cir. 2011) ....................................................... 9

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742

(2010) .................................................................... 31

National Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Lamont,

153 F.4th 213 (2d Cir. 2025) ........................ 6, 7, 14

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc.

v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) ............................ 13, 15

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc.

v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) ................ 14

People v. Alexander, 189 A.D.2d 189,

595 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1993) ....................................... 11

Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972) ...... 10

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados

Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025) ................ 3

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) ...... 10

United States v. Carolene Products Co.,

304 U.S. 144 (1938) .............................................. 11

Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970) ........ 14

Wilson v. Cook County, 937 F.3d 1028

(7th Cir. 2019) ...................................................... 13

CONSTITUTIONS

U.S. Const., Amendment II . 1-2, 5, 13-15, 22, 26, 28

U.S. Const., Amendment XIV ......... 2, 30, 31, 32, 33

U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ................................... 27

Mass. Dec. of Rights art. XVII (1780) ................... 23

N.C. Dec. of Rights art. XVII (1776) ..................... 23

Pa. Declaration of Rights art. XIII (1776) ............ 23

Vt. Const. art. I, § 15 (1777) .................................. 23

Va. Declaration of Rights art. XIII (1776) ............ 23

STATUTES AND ORDINANCES

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(7) ............................................... 9

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29) ............................................. 9

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) .................................................. 3

36 U.S.C. § 40722 .................................................... 7

Civil Rights Act of 1866 ........................................ 32

Freedmen’s Bureau Act, § 14,

14 Stat. 173 (1866) ............................................... 32

Militia Act, § 1, 1 Stat. 271 (1792) ......................... 26

National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) ..... 3, 8

P.L. 58-149, § 1, 33 Stat. 986, 987 (1905) ............... 7

11 C.C.R. § 5471(z) ................................................ 14

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(16) ................................. 12

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202a(1)(E)(II) ............... 12, 13

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202a(1)(E)(iii) ...................... 7

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202b ................................... 33

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202c .................................... 33

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202d ................................... 33

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202w(b) .............................. 33

Cook County, Ill., Ordinance No. 06-O-50,

§ 54-211(1)(A) ....................................................... 12

Cook County, Ill. Code § 54-212(a) (2024) ............ 33

Md. Code, Criminal Law § 4-301(d), (h)(1) ........... 13

Va. 1819, c. 111, §§ 7–8 ......................................... 30

Va. 1831, c. 22, § 4 ................................................. 30

So. Car. Stat., No. 4730, § XIII (1865) .................. 30

FOREIGN STATUTES

An Act Concerning Shooting in Long Bowes,

3 Hen. VIII c. 3 (1511) .......................................... 16

Assize of Arms of 1181 .................................... 15, 26

Declaration of Rights, 1 W. & M.,

Sess. 2, c.2, (1689) .......................................... 16, 20

Game Act, 22 Car. II c.25, § 3 (1670) .................... 16

Militia Act, 13 & 14 Car. II c.3 (1662) .................. 16

vii

LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS

2 Journals of the Continental Congress

151 (1905) ............................................................. 21

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) ............ 31

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess. (1866) ............. 32

4 Documentary History of the First

Federal Congress (1986) ...................................... 25

14 Documentary History of the First

Federal Congress (1995) ...................................... 26

2 Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution (1976) .................................... 24

6 Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution (2000) .................................... 24

15 Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution (1984) .................................... 24

18 Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution (1995) .................................... 25

1 Elliot, Debates in the Several State

Conventions (1836) ............................................... 25

3 Elliot, Debates in the Several State

Conventions (1836) ............................................... 25

Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 ............................ 25

viii

Firearms: Hearing Before the Senate

Committee on Finance, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.,

on H.R. 4029 (1960) .............................................. 10

Rpt. of Jt. Comm. on Reconstruction,

H.R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.

(1866) .................................................................... 31

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Anderson, Gary, The National Matches—

Their History and Appeal (2022) ........................... 8

Beeman, Robert, “Girandoni Style Air Rifles

& Pistols” (2007) ................................................... 27

Blount, Thomas, Nomo-lexikon (1670) ................. 17

Boston Chronicle, Sept. 19, 1768 ........................... 20

Boston Gazette, Sept. 26, 1768 ............................... 19

Castelow, Ellen, “The Longbow” (Mar. 4, 2016) ... 16

1 Catlin, George, Letters & Notes on the

Manners, Customs, & Conditions of

North American Indians (1844) ........................... 27

Chapman, Dennis, The AR-15 Controversy

(2021) ...................................................................... 6

CMP Highpower Rifle Competition Rules

(2026) ...................................................................... 7

“The Colt Sporter,” Shooting Times (Dec. 1964) .... 4

The Compact with the Charter and Laws

of the Colony of New Plymouth (1836) ................. 18

Creighton, Oliver, et al., “The Face of Battle?”

100 Antiquaries Jour. (2020) ............................... 16

Department of Defense, MIL-STD-1913,

Dimensioning of Accessory Mounting Rail

for Small Arms Weapons (1995) ......................... 4-5

Deyrup, Felicia, Arms Making in the

Connecticut Valley (1970) ..................................... 27

Edwards, William, Civil War Guns (1962) ..... 31, 32

Familiar Letters of John Adams and his Wife,

Abigail Adams During the Revolution (1876) ..... 21

Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 .............................. 25

The Federalist No. 29 ............................................ 23

The Federalist No. 46 ............................................ 24

Frothingham, Richard, History of the Siege

of Boston (1903) .................................................... 21

Gross, Robert, The Minutemen & Their World

(1976) .................................................................... 20

Halbrook, Stephen, America’s Rifle (2022) ............. 3

Hanger, George, A Letter to the Right Hon.

Lord Castlereagh (1808) .................................. 21-22

Haven, Charles, et al., A History of the Colt

Revolver (1940) ..................................................... 28

Held, Robert, The Age of Firearms (1978) ............ 17

Held, Robert, The Belton Systems (1986) ............. 22

Jefferson, Thomas, Writings (1984) ...................... 26

Kingsbury, Susan, The Records of the

Virginia Company of London (1933) ................... 18

MacKenzie, Frederick, A British Fusilier

in Revolutionary Boston (1926) ............................ 20

McCloud, Gary, What Is the Bullet Weight

for a .223 Caliber Rifle? (2024) ............................ 31

McManus, Troy, Everything You Need to Know

About USPSA Multi-Gun Competition,

NRA Shooting Sports USA (May 1, 2024) ............. 8

Morgan, R.B., ed., Readings in English Social

History (1923) ....................................................... 16

National Rifle Association of America,

NRA America’s Rifle Challenge (ARC)

Program Rulebook (2025) ....................................... 8

N.Y. Times, Oct. 26, 1866 ...................................... 32

1 The Papers of George Mason (1970) ................... 23

12 Papers of James Madison (1979) ..................... 26

Peterson, Harold, Arms & Armor in Colonial

America (2000) .......................................... 18, 19, 21

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut

(1850) .................................................................... 19

Rywell, Martin, The Trial of Samuel Colt

(1953) .................................................................... 28

Schreier, Philip, “A Short History of the

Semi-Automatic Firearm,” America’s 1st

Freedom, June 28, 2022 ....................................... 10

Sharp, Granville, Tracts, Concerning the

Ancient & Only True Legal Means of

National Defence, by a Free Militia (1782) .......... 17

Small Arms Identification & Operation Guide

(Defense Intelligence Agency 1980) ..................... 11

Smith, Mark, “What Part of ‘In Common Use’

Don’t You Understand?” Harvard JLPP,

Sept. 27, 2023 ....................................................... 12

Stevens, R. Blake & Edward C. Ezell,

The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective (1987) ............ 5

3 Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the

Constitution (1833) ............................................... 29

Stubbs, W. The Constitutional History

of England (1873) ................................................. 16

xii

Sugarmann, Josh, Assault Weapons &

Accessories in America (1988) ............................... 12

Supica, Jim, et al., The Illustrated History

of Firearms (2020) ................................................ 27

Terrill, Daniel, “CMP Approved to Sell More

Than 100,000 Surplus M14 Rifles,”

Military Times, Aug. 10, 2026 ............................. 10

Tucker, St. George, A Dissertation on

Slavery (1796) ....................................................... 29

1 Tucker, St. George, Blackstone’s

Commentaries (1803) ...................................... 17, 29

“The Way It Used to Be,” 126 American

Rifleman 12 (Feb. 1978) ....................................... 10

Webster, Noah, An Examination of the

Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution

(1787) .................................................................... 23

Williamson, Robert, Winchester: The Gun

That Won the West (1952) .................................... 28

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Second Amendment Law Center, Inc.

(2ALC) is a nonprofit corporation located in

Henderson, Nevada.1 Through its amicus curiae

briefs, 2ALC defends the individual rights to keep

and bear arms as envisioned by the Founders. 2ALC

also educates the public about the social utility of

firearm ownership and provides accurate historical,

criminological, and technical information to

policymakers, judges, and the public.

2ALC brings before this Court historical and

technical material that supplements the parties’

briefing, including research about the legal and

historical status of the AR-15 rifle platform and

similar semiautomatic rifles, and the original public

understanding of the “Arms” that Americans are

entitled to keep and bear.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The AR-15 is the historical evolution of rifle

designs in common use that originated 125 years ago.

Introduced in 1964, the AR-15 Sporter has versatile

features that have rendered it to be in common use

by the public. The AR-15 is just the latest stage in

over a century’s tradition of common use of

semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines.

The term “assault weapon” has no objective meaning

or significance under the Second Amendment. The

1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or

in part nor did such counsel or any party make a monetary

contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

No person other than this amicus curiae, its members, or its

counsel made such a monetary contribution.

feature lists in the Cook County, Connecticut, and

other bans are in stark conflict with one another.

The AR-15 falls within the historical tradition

of the right to effective arms for defense of self and

state and other lawful purposes.

The English

freeman had a right and duty to be armed. From

colonial times to the Revolution and beyond, effective

arms were critical to the Americans. In reaction to

arms confiscation by the British, the colonists

asserted their right to keep and use their militia

arms in defense of liberty. The Second Amendment

was understood to guarantee a robust concept of the

“Arms” that the people have a right to keep and bear.

The right to “Arms” expanded as the Republic

and technology grew.

In the early Republic,

prohibitions on arms paralleled by respondents’ laws

here were considered infringements on the right.

The Fourteenth Amendment was understood to

protect the right to possess common arms, including

“military” firearms like muskets.

Text and historical tradition are inconsistent

with treating the civilian AR-15 as the equivalent of

an M16 machinegun, or with treating a shifting list

of ergonomic features as a constitutional

classification. Today, the AR-15 is in common use by

law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes throughout

the United States.

ARGUMENT

I. THE AR-15 IS THE HISTORICAL

EVOLUTION OF RIFLE DESIGNS

IN COMMON USE THAT ORIGINATED

125 YEARS AGO

A. Introduced in 1964, the AR-15 Sporter Has

Versatile Features that Have Rendered it

to be in Common Use by the Public

“The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the

country.” Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados

Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025). Tracing

its origins, the following explains its features that

make it “America’s Rifle.”

In 1963, Colt submitted to the predecessor

agency of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

and Explosives (ATF) two firearms for evaluation: a

semiautomatic “AR-15 Sports Version Rifle” and an

“AR-15 automatic rifle” (later renamed the M16).

The agency found that modifications to the automatic

version that made it into the Sports Version “have

changed the weapon in basic design to the extent

that it is not a ‘firearm’ in the machine gun category”

as defined in the National Firearms Act.2 Director,

Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division, Internal Revenue

Service, to Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing

Co., Dec. 10, 1963, quoted in Stephen P. Halbrook,

America’s Rifle 14-15 (2022).

“The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which

shoots…automatically more than one shot, without manual

reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. §

5845(b).

The Sports Version was introduced to the

public as the AR-15 Sporter in 1964. The review

“The Colt Sporter,” Shooting Times 17 (Dec. 1964),

described the rifle as having “quite moderate” recoil,

making it “pleasant to shoot.” It was a “magazine

fed, semiautomatic rifle” of “very light weight,” and

its buttstock “of straight-line design…has the effect

of reducing the recoil movement which reduces

muzzle jump….” Id. at 19. “The stock design makes

a separate pistol grip necessary,” which is “very

comfortable.” Id.

Shooting Times noted that the rifle “will

perform well on game within the capabilities of the

.223 cartridge,” including “larger varmints” and

“running jacks and coyotes,” but the “diminutive .223

round simply isn’t adequate” for “big game” like

whitetails. Id. Being inadequate for deer hunting,

the .223 cartridge in no way lives up to the

inaccurate claim that it suddenly becomes

exceedingly destructive when fired from an AR-15.3

The above could be written about today’s

makes and models of the AR-15, albeit modern

versions are more versatile, such as having better

attachment points to secure scopes and other

accessories.4 As AR-15-style rifles have an upper

3 A cartridge has the same effect without regard to the

type of rifle it is fired from. Cf. Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th

438, 455 (4th Cir. 2024) (referring to the supposed

“‘catastrophic’ damage caused by AR-15 rounds”), cert. denied,

Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534 (2025).

Civilian AR-15-style rifles commonly use a flat-top

upper with what is called a “Picatinny rail” above or on the side

of the barrel to mount optics, lights, and other accessories so

they can be attached, removed, and returned to zero without

altering the rifle. See MIL-STD-1913, Dimensioning of

receiver and a lower receiver, the two-piece receiver

may permit changing barrel length, caliber, and

sighting equipment on the upper receiver without

replacing the serialized lower. A flat-top upper with

a standardized accessory rail accepts a red-dot or

other optic and a light, the attachments most useful

in low light. Combined with the moderate recoil of

the .223 caliber or 5.56 mm cartridge (the AR-15

accepts either), those features make the rifle usable

by a wide base of civilians, including those who are

smaller-statured or recoil-sensitive.

After “perhaps the most comprehensive trial

record in any Second Amendment case to date,” the

Southern District of Illinois “found that AR-15s are

light, short, and have less recoil, making them easier

to handle and fire,” and their “lighter weight, shorter

barrel, and ergonomic stock and grip” make AR-15

rifles “well suited for self-defense.” Barnett v. Raoul,

180 F.4th 1035, 1059, 1078 (7th Cir. 2026) (Brennan,

C.J., dissenting).

It was also in 1964 that the M16 was delivered

to the U.S. Air Force, the first branch of the Armed

Forces to issue it. R. Blake Stevens & Edward C.

Ezell, The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective, 149–50

(1987). Outwardly, the AR-15 and the M16 have a

similar appearance, most prominently a protruding

pistol grip. Yet all rifles have some kind of grip, and

they all have a barrel and a stock.

While

respondents castigate the AR-15 as somehow

“military,” they cannot identify a single country in

Accessory Mounting Rail for Small Arms Weapons 1–2 (1995). A

commercial “optic ready” listing is an application of such rail.

See, e.g., Smith & Wesson, M&P 15 Series, https://www.smithwesson.com/product/m-p-15-axe-rifle-16-inch.

the world that issues the AR-15 or any other

semiautomatic rifle as a service rifle to its armed

forces.

The pistol grip on an AR-15 or M16 is designed

to facilitate firing the rifle from the shoulder. It is

odd that a pistol grip is an essential element of a

constitutionally-protected handgun (see Heller), but

somehow that same pistol grip attached to a rifle

makes the rifle an “assault weapon.”

A study of U.S. Armed Forces training

manuals found no evidence that pistol grips “were

developed or deployed intending to facilitate the

spraying of fire from the hip.” Dennis P. Chapman,

The AR-15 Controversy 41 (2021). Such manuals

devote almost exclusive focus on firing from the

shoulder. Id. at 41-59.5

Indeed, pistol grips are

found on single-shot and bolt-action rifles and even

air guns used in Olympic competition.6

Optional features include a telescoping stock

that makes it adjustable to the size of the user – a

concept no different than getting shoes that fit. A

telescoping stock typically allows adjustments that

render the rifle’s overall length (measured from the

5 The claim that the pistol grip is designed for “spray”

firing is pure fantasy. But see National Ass’n for Gun Rights v.

Lamont, 153 F.4th 213, 226 (2d Cir. 2025).

See, e.g., EuroOptic, Anschutz 64 Biathlon .22 LR

Walnut Sprint Nitrided 21" Bbl Rifle w/6865 Front Sight, and 2Stage Trigger, https://www.eurooptic.com/anschutz-64-biathon22lr-21-walnut-sprint-nitrided-w-front-sight-6865-014351 (last

visited Aug. 28, 2026) (bolt action rifle). See also Feinwerkbau,

Air

Rifle,

single-shot

air

rifles

https://feinwerkbau.de/en/disciplines/air-rifle (last visited Aug.

28, 2026) (selection of single-shot air rifles).

muzzle of the barrel to the end of the buttstock) to be

approximately 33 inches at the shortest,7 making it

longer than what Connecticut otherwise requires.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202a(1)(E)(iii) (defining

“assault weapon” as a rifle with an overall length of

less than 30 inches). Yet a telescoping stock is

claimed to make a rifle “easier to conceal.” Lamont,

153 F.4th at 226.

That said, the same features render the

persons experienced with the AR-15 easier to train

should they be called up for service in the militia or

Armed Forces. In 1905, Congress enacted a law to

promote rifle marksmanship and to sell “magazine

rifles” from military surplus “for the use of rifle

clubs.” P.L. 58-149, §1, 33 Stat. 986, 987 (1905). That

continues today as the Civilian Marksmanship

Program (CMP), which functions to “to instruct

citizens of the United States in marksmanship,” “to

promote practice and safety in the use of firearms,”

and “to conduct competitions in the use of

firearms….” 36 U.S.C. § 40722. One of the three

leading rifles used in competition is the “M16 U.S.

Service Rifle or a similar AR15-type commercial

rifle….” CMP Highpower Rifle Competition Rules 41

(2026),

available

https://thecmp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2026/05/2026-Highpower-Rifle.pdf.8

7 See, e.g., Springfield Armory Saint, M-LOK® 5.56, AR-

15 Rifle, Low Capacity, https://www.springfield-armory.com/arseries/saint-ar-15-rifles/saint-556-m-lok-ar-15-rifle-b5-lowcapacity/ (length 33” to 36.25”).

8 The other two rifles are (a) an M14/M1A-type rifle that

was issued by the U.S. Armed Forces, a Springfield Armory

manufactured rifle or another commercial rifle of the same type

CMP matches culminate in the Annual

National Matches, the “World Series of the Shooting

Sports,” which has been held since 1907.9 The

National Rifle Association also sponsors competitions

“based on the AR-15 and/or other appropriate semiautomatic rifles.”10

And semiautomatic rifles,

pistols, and shotguns are in common use in matches

sponsored by the United States Practical Shooting

Association (USPSA).11

The critical difference between the AR-15 and

the M16 is the semiautomatic-only function of the

former and the fully automatic function of the latter.

The claim that the AR-15’s “only meaningful

distinction” from the M16 “is that the AR-15 has only

semiautomatic capability,” Bevis v. City of

Naperville, Ill., 85 F.4th 1175, 1195 (7th Cir. 2023)

(emphasis added), revolts against almost a century of

legal tradition not restricting semiautomatics but

severely restricting machineguns in the National

Firearms Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1236. And it ignores

and caliber, and (b) a Caliber .30 U.S. M1 Garand-type rifle. Id.

at 44, 46.

9 Gary Anderson, The National Matches – Their History

and

Appeal

3-4

(Spring

2022),

available

https://thecmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/National

MatchesHistoryandAppeal.pdf.

10 National Rifle Association of America, NRA America’s

Rifle Challenge (ARC) Program Rulebook 3 (2025), available at

https://arc.nra.org/media/10359/arc-rulebook.pdf.

See Troy McManus, Everything You Need to Know

About USPSA Multi-Gun Competition, NRA Shooting Sports

USA (May 1, 2024), https://www.ssusa.org/content/everythingyou-need-to-know-about-uspsa-multi-gun-competition/.

that none of the “assault weapon” laws ban a rifle

just for being semiautomatic.

While every firearm may have its own unique

features, at a higher level of generality the AR-15

functions like all other semiautomatic rifles. A “rifle”

is a weapon “fired from the shoulder” which “use[s]

the energy of an explosive to fire only a single

projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of

the trigger.”

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(7).

“semiautomatic rifle” is “any repeating rifle which

utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to

extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next

round, and which requires a separate pull of the

trigger to fire each cartridge.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

A pistol grip or telescoping stock does not change

that definition or convert the rifle into a machinegun.

As the following demonstrates, semiautomatic

firearm technology has been around for a century

and a quarter.

B. The AR-15 Is Just the Latest Evolution in

Over a Century’s Tradition of Common

Use of Semiautomatic Rifles

Semiautomatic

rifles

with

detachable

magazines, some with pistol grips, came into use at

the turn of the century. Early versions included the

Winchester Models 1903 and 1905, the Remington

Model 8, and models by Standard Arms and

Browning Arms. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670

F.3d 1244, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J.,

dissenting) (citing sources). “These semi-automatic

rifles were designed and marketed primarily for use

as hunting rifles, with a small ancillary market

among law enforcement officers.” Id. See further

Philip Schreier, “A Short History of the SemiAutomatic Firearm,” America’s 1st Freedom, June 28,

2022, https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/content/ashort-history-of-the-semi-automatic-firearm/.

The semiautomatic M1 Carbine, which uses a

detachable magazine, originated as a military rifle in

World War II. Large quantities were later sold to

civilians by the federal government. “Many of them

are privately owned, and in many States they are a

legal deer rifle.” Firearms: Hearing before Senate

Com. on Finance, 86th Cong., 2nd Sess., on H.R.

4029, at 14 (1960) (testimony of NRA Secretary

Frank Daniel). In 1958-1967 alone, the CMP sold

207,000 M-1 Carbines to the public. “The Way It

Used to Be,” 126 American Rifleman 12, 13 (Feb.

1978).

The CMP recently announced that it will begin

selling military surplus M14 rifles converted to

semiautomatic only to civilians.

Daniel Terrill,

“CMP Approved to Sell More Than 100,000 Surplus

M14 Rifles,” Military Times, Aug. 10, 2026,

https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2

026/08/10/cmp-approved-to-sell-more-than-100000surplus-m14-rifles/.

Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661, 666 (Fla.

1972), referred to firearms that “are commonly kept

and used by law-abiding people for hunting purposes

or for the protection of their persons and property,

such as semiautomatic shotguns, semiautomatic

pistols and rifles.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S.

600, 610–11 (1994), described the AR-15 in the

context of the “long tradition of widespread lawful

gun ownership” by Americans.

C. The Term “Assault Weapon” Has No

Objective Meaning and Has No

Constitutional Significance

Etymologically, the term “assault weapon”

means an object used in an assault. 12 Denigrating

rifles in common use as “assault weapons” is

meaningless, as “no pronouncement of a Legislature

can forestall attack upon the constitutionality of the

prohibition which it enacts by applying opprobrious

epithets to the prohibited act….” United States v.

Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938).

The military term “assault rifle” refers to a

type of machinegun, not to a semiautomatic like the

AR-15. “Assault rifles are short, compact, selective

fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in

power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

Assault rifles…are capable of delivering effective full

automatic fire….”

Small Arms Identification &

Operation Guide 105 (Defense Intelligence Agency

1980). The M16 selective-fire service rifle has been

America’s “standard assault rifle.” Christianson v.

Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 804

(1988). Selective fire means that it can fire in

semiautomatic, three-shot bursts, or continuous as

long as the trigger is pulled.

But “assault weapon” has become a

propaganda term. It is cynically argued that “the

public’s confusion” between full automatics and

semiautomatics — “anything that looks like a

machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can

E.g., People v. Alexander, 189 A.D.2d 189, 193, 595

N.Y.S.2d 279 (1993) (“a tire iron that was believed to be the

assault weapon.”).

only increase the chance of public support for

restrictions on these weapons.” Josh Sugarmann,

Assault Weapons & Accessories in America (Violence

Policy

Center

1988),

available

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm.

Originally, the firearm prohibition movement

depicted handguns as bad, long guns as good. In

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),

the Violence Policy Center argued in support of the

District that handguns are used in most mass

shootings, such as at Virginia Tech in 2007 where 32

students and faculty were murdered.

Brief of

Violence Policy Center, 2008 WL 136348, *24 (U.S.

2008). It maintained that “shotguns and rifles are

much more effective in stopping” a criminal;

“handguns—compared with larger shotguns and

rifles that are designed to be held with two hands—

require a greater degree of dexterity.” Id. at *30.

Once Heller held handguns to be protected,

handguns became good, rifles became evil “assault

weapons.”13

But the prohibitionists cannot agree on what

features transform a semiautomatic rifle that accepts

a magazine, which by itself is not an “assault

weapon,” into one.

In Cook County, one feature is

having “only a pistol grip without a stock attached.” §

54-211(1)(A), Cook County, Ill., Ordinance No. 06–O–

50 (2006). But Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53–202a (1)(E)(II)

bans a rifle with a pistol grip only if it has a stock

attached, as its definition of “rifle” means that it is

“fired from the shoulder.” Id. § 53a-3(16). And

13 See Mark W. Smith, “What Part of ‘In Common Use’

Don’t You Understand?” Harvard JLPP, Sept. 27, 2023.

Maryland does not even include a pistol grip, with or

without a stock, as a prohibited feature. Md. Code,

Criminal Law, § 4-301(d), (h)(1).

It is unclear why a rifle with a pistol grip has

no Second Amendment protection if it has no stock

attached (Cook County), if it has a stock attached

(Connecticut), or if it does not matter either way

(Maryland). The definitions of “assault weapon” are

a Tower of Babel that criminalize protected “Arms.”

The same rifle can be lawful or contraband

depending on the jurisdiction, with no historically

grounded principle explaining the differences.

The Cook County ordinance was initially

upheld because “[t]he features prohibited…were not

common in 1791.” Wilson v. Cook County, 937 F.3d

1028, 1034 (7th Cir. 2019). But that turned the

historical test upside down, as no features on rifles

were prohibited in 1791. “[T]he 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.” Heller, 554

U.S. at 582. When this Court added that “Arms”

include “modern instruments that facilitate armed

self-defense,” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n,

Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 28 (2022), the Seventh

Circuit switched to the incredible argument that “the

AR-15 is almost the same gun as the M16

machinegun.” Bevis, 85 F.4th at 1195.

Connecticut describes the banned features to

include a pistol grip that allows one “to grip the

weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand

in addition to the trigger finger being directly below

any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.”

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53–202a (1)(E)(II). Why a rifle

would lose Second Amendment protection because a

finger is below (instead of above) the action was not

explained when the ban was upheld in New York

State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d

242 (2d Cir. 2015), or more recently in Lamont, 153

F.4th 213.14

The term “assault weapon” is “an Alice-inWonderland world where words have no meaning.”

Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 354 (1970)

(Harlan, J., concurring). Whether a firearm is

protected is said to depend on where one’s fingers are

placed when firing it. No principled basis exists to

interpret constitutional rights that way.

II. BANNING RIFLES IS INCONSISTENT

WITH THIS NATION’S HISTORICAL

TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION

The AR-15 is “America’s rifle.” It is the most

commonly possessed rifle by law-abiding citizens in

the United States. Possession of AR-15 rifles falls

within centuries of historical tradition of having

effective long arms for lawful purposes.

Historically, the militia was “necessary to the

security of a free state” for “repelling invasions and

suppressing

insurrections,”

rendering

“large

14 Equally baffling is California’s banned feature of “a

grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the

trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be

placed beneath or below the top of the exposed portion of the

trigger while firing.” 11 C.C.R. § 5471(z). Presumably the rifle

has Second Amendment protection only if the web of the trigger

hand can be placed above, instead of beneath or below, the top of

the exposed portion of the trigger.

standing armies unnecessary,” and “resist[ing]

tyranny.”

Heller, 554 U.S. at 597-98. But

preservation of the right was “even more important

for self-defense and hunting.”

Id. at 599.

Traditionally, the militia consisted of “men bringing

arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes

like self-defense,” as small arms used in the militia

and for self-defense were the same. Id. at 624-25.15

The American people have decided that the AR-15

fits these purposes perfectly.

Here, semiautomatic rifles are “Arms” within

the plain text, and banning them is utterly

inconsistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of

firearm regulation. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17.

A. The English Freeman Had a Right and Duty

to Be Armed With Effective Weapons

From medieval England through the early

American Republic, the right to keep and bear arms

was viewed as both a right and a duty. Far from

banning them, the early monarchs required the

subjects to possess and train with arms to protect the

realm. Accustomed to having their own arms for

their own defense, the subjects viewed themselves as

entitled to be armed. The right evolved until it found

stronger expression in the Second Amendment.

The duty and right to be armed with projectile

weapons, from bows and arrows to firearms, appears

in various stages of English history. Henry’s Assize

While to be effective as at the Founding, a militia

today could “require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual

in society,” but “the degree of fit between the prefatory clause

and the protected right” has become limited. Id. at 627-28.

of Arms of 1181 “directed that the whole free

population, the communa liberorum hominum,

should furnish themselves with arms.” 1 William

Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England 633

(1873). In 1363, Edward III declared that “the

people of our realm, rich and poor alike…shall, upon

holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and

arrows…and so learn and practise archery.” R.B.

Morgan ed., Readings in English Social History 15051 (1923). In 1511, Henry VIII directed that “every

man…do use and exercise shooting in longbows, and

also to have a bow and arrows ready continually in

his house to use himself and do use himself in

shooting….” An Act Concerning Shooting in Long

Bowes, 3 Hen. VIII c. 3 (1511).

Arrows could “create small entry and large

exit wounds in the human skull not unlike modernday gunshot wounds….” Oliver H. Creighton et al.,

“The Face of Battle?” 100 Antiquaries Jour. 165

(2020). One could continue firing as long as the

arrows held out, at a distance of one thousand feet,

at the rate of ten to twelve per minute.16 The subjects

who were trusted with arms encompassed “the whole

population capable of bearing arms,” a force that

“was primarily a weapon of defense, not of

aggression.” 2 William Stubbs, The Constitutional

History of England 294 (1873).

But the Stuarts broke this historical tradition

of trusting the subjects with arms. See Militia Act,

13 & 14 Car. II c.3 (1662); Game Act, 22 Car. II c.25,

16 Ellen Castelow, The Longbow (Mar. 4. 2016),

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/TheLongbow/.

§ 3 (1670). In response, the Declaration of Rights, 1

W. & M., Sess. 2, c.2, (1689), described how James II

“caus[ed] several good Subjects, being Protestants, to

be disarmed,” and declared: “That the Subjects which

are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence

suitable to their Condition, and as are allowed by

Law.”

What was meant by “Arms”? “Armes (arma) In

the understanding of Law, are extended to any thing

that a Man wears for his defence, or takes into his

hands, or useth in his wrath to cast at, or strike

another.” Thomas Blount, Nomo-lexikon (1670).

Common muskets were typically .75 caliber. Robert

Held, The Age of Firearms 107 (1978). That was

three times larger in diameter than the .223 caliber

bullet usually fired from the AR-15.

William Blackstone described the right “of

having arms for their defence” as preserving “the

natural right of resistance and self-preservation,

when the sanctions of society and laws are found

insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” 1

Blackstone, Commentaries *139.

That required

effective arms, such as “the musket and bayonet.”

Granville Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient &

Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a

Free Militia 14-15 (1782).

In sum, our English heritage entailed the

keeping of proficient arms by the people as both a

duty and a right. The right to firearms was essential

to the historical tradition that the Americans

inherited and expanded in the New World.

B. Effective Long Arms Were Essential

For Survival for the Colonists

The American settlers brought with them

their rights as Englishmen and their arms,

particularly long arms, to protect themselves. When

the British Crown sought to deprive them of these

rights, the Americans resorted to their arms and

created an independent America. Through these

periods, innovations continued to be made in

firearms technology, particularly in the manner in

which a spark would ignite the gunpowder to expel

the bullet. Far from being a historical tradition of

banning advanced long arms, the Americans both

mandated their use and recognized the right to

possess them.

Jamestown settlers in 1607 mostly had

matchlocks, although some had the more advanced

wheel locks and snaphaunces which made ignition

more reliable. Harold L. Peterson, Arms & Armor in

Colonial America 43 (2000). Each technological

improvement allowed faster, more reliable discharge.

Every settler was required to have a “Peece”

(musket), sword, 20 lbs. of powder, and “Sixty pound

of shot or lead, Pistoll and Goose shot.” 3 Susan M.

Kingsbury, The Records of the Virginia Company of

London 578 (1933).

In 1632, Plymouth Colony “ordered that every

freeman or other in habitant of this colony provide

for himselfe and each under him able to beare armes

a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece….”

The Compact with the Charter and Laws of the

Colony of New Plymouth 31 (1836). A 1712 act

declared that “bayonets are of more use, as well for

offence and defence,” and thus persons in Boston

obliged to answer an alarm were to provide

themselves with such. Id. at 399.

A 1650 Connecticut law ordered “[t]hat all

persons that are above the age of sixteene

years…shall beare arms…and every male person

within this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall

have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other

gunn….” 1 Public Records of the Colony of

Connecticut 542 (1850).

From 1689 to 1783, the main firearm of the

colonists was the smooth-bore flintlock musket of a

large caliber. Peterson, Arms & Armor 159-60. “The

average colonist could not afford to own a selection of

guns, and so he normally chose one which would

serve him well in hunting and also pass inspection on

muster days. Thus the distinction between military

and sporting arms is almost lost.” Id. at 179.

While most arms were single shot, multi-shot

arms were on the scene. In 1722, John Prim of

Boston demonstrated a long gun that “though loaded

but once, yet was discharged eleven times following,

with bullets….” Id. at 347. “[T]his type of repeating

flintlock, popular in England from the third quarter

of the 17th century, was known and manufactured in

Massachusetts early in the 18th century….” Id. at

215. And in 1756, the Boston Gazette advertised a

long gun made by John Cookson that “will fire 9

times distinctly, as quick or slow as you please….”17

“Database of USA Gunmakers,” Enciclopedia delle

armi - a cura di Edoardo Mori,

https://www.earmi.it/USA%20Gunmakers/C.html.

C. The Colonists Asserted Their Right to

Their Militia Arms in Defense of Liberty

From when the British began to disarm them

through when they declared independence, the

colonists maintained their right to keep and bear

their arms, including suitable militia arms. It would

have been inconceivable to the Americans that they

were entitled to have only the most inferior arms

dictated by the British authorities.

In 1768, when British troops were coming to

occupy Boston, the town passed a resolution recalling

the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 “that the

Subjects being Protestants, may have arms for their

Defence.” Boston Chronicle, Sept. 19, 1768, at 363.

The resolution repeated the Massachusetts Bay law

that

“every

listed

Soldier

and

other

Householder…shall always be provided with a well

fix’d

Firelock,

Musket,

Accouterments

and

Ammunition….” Id.

After seven years of escalating conflict,

colonists at Lexington Common faced British

regulars. The militiamen were largely armed with

their own private muskets. Robert A. Gross, The

Minutemen & Their World 61, 69–70 (1976). The day

of “the shot heard ‘round the world” ended badly for

the British. As they retreated under fire from

Lexington and Concord, a British officer recalled that

the Americans “were generally good marksmen, and

many of them used long guns made for DuckShooting.” Frederick MacKenzie, A British Fusilier

in Revolutionary Boston 67 (1926). That exemplified

how the colonists adapted their long arms to both

military and sporting purposes.

When General Thomas Gage ordered the

inhabitants of Boston to surrender their arms, “the

people delivered to the selectmen 1778 fire-arms

[muskets], 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38

blunderbusses.” Richard Frothingham, History of the

Siege of Boston 95 (1903). Long guns were by far the

norm. The Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms

of July 6, 1775, denounced how the British

confiscated the arms. 2 Journals of the Continental

Congress 151 (1905).

Rifled arms were now on the scene, and they

were far more accurate than smooth-bore muskets.

Rifling consists of spiral grooves cut inside the barrel

to give the bullet a spin, similar to throwing a

football. German gunsmiths brought the technology

to Pennsylvania. Frontiersmen depended on rifles for

food and protection, leading to “a high degree of

proficiency in its use by a relatively large segment of

the population.” Peterson, Arms & Armor, 193. That

leap in technology was not stifled by government

naysayers, equivalent to respondents here, claiming

that commoners must not be allowed such arms.

While the smooth bores were only accurate at

50 to 75 yards, John Adams wrote in 1775 about

patriots who “use a peculiar kind of musket, called a

rifle. It has circular or – grooves [sic] within the

barrel, and carries a ball with great exactness to

great distances.” Familiar Letters of John Adams

and his Wife, Abigail Adams During the Revolution

65-66 (1876).

British Major General George Hanger

described how in America “an expert rifleman,

provided he can draw good and true sight…, can hit

the head of a man at 200 yards.” George Hanger, A

Letter to the Right Hon. Lord Castlereagh 79 (1808).

Multi-shot firearms were also being further

developed. In 1777, Joseph Belton wrote to the

Continental Congress about his “improvement in the

use of Small Armes” which could be made to fire 8,

16, or 20 balls “one after another” in seconds. Robert

Held, The Belton Systems 17 (1986). An expert

commission reported to the Congress having seen

that the musket “discharg’d sixteen balls loaded at

one time” and recommended that it “might be

Rendered of great service….” Id. at 37.

D. The Second Amendment Was Understood to

Guarantee a Robust Concept of the “Arms”

According

the

original

public

understanding, the “Arms” that the people have a

right to keep and bear has a broad, robust meaning.

Their arms had to be effective for survival, hunting,

self-defense (against humans and wild animals),

protection from hostile tribes, liberation from

Britain, and a counterweight to abusive power by

government.

Quality, technologically-superior “Arms” were

intended in the arms guarantees of the states

beginning in 1776, that of the Second Amendment in

1791, and those of the states that were admitted to

the Union thereafter. The Founders were acutely

aware of the evolution of arms technology in relation

to ignition systems, rifling, repeating arms, and

other innovations, and they fully anticipated

progress to continue.

“Arms” included large-caliber muskets with

bayonets at the Founding, and they include AR-15

platform and similar semiautomatic rifles today. No

one could have imagined that the people are entitled

only to inferior functioning arms such as respondents

here impose by criminal penalties.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, Art. XIII

(1776), declared that “a well regulated Militia,

composed of the Body of the People, trained to Arms,

is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free

State….” Its author George Mason helped George

Washington organize the Fairfax Independent

Militia Company, whose members pledged to

“constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of

gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. 1 The Papers

of George Mason 210–11 (1970).

The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, Art.

XIII (1776), provided: “That the people have a right

to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the

state….” Vermont passed identical language. Vt.

Const., Art. I, Sec. 15 (1777). North Carolina

declared: “That the People have a right to bear Arms

for the Defense of the State….” N.C. Dec. of Rights,

Art. XVII (1776). And Massachusetts declared: “The

people have a right to keep and bear arms for the

common defence.” Mass. Dec. of Rights, Art. XVII

(1780). No matter what the wording, the “Arms” had

to be effective for the declared objectives.

When the Constitution was proposed in 1787,

Noah Webster argued that “[t]he supreme power in

America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;

because the whole body of the people are armed….”

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading

Principles of the Federal Constitution 43 (1787). In

The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton urged

that a large army could not threaten liberty “while

there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior

to them in discipline and the use of arms….” 15

Documentary History of the Ratification of the

Constitution 319 (1984).

Similarly, in The Federalist No. 46, James

Madison argued that an oppressive army “would be

opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a

million of citizens with arms in their hands….”

Referring to “the advantage of being armed, which

the Americans possess over the people of almost

every other nation,” he added that in the European

kingdoms “the governments are afraid to trust the

people with arms.” Id. at 492–93. That is the case

with the respondents here.

Pennsylvania’s Dissent of the Minority

declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms

for the defense of themselves and their own state, or

the United States, or for the purpose of killing

game….” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification

of the Constitution, 623–24 (1976). Again, this shows

the symmetry between arms for military, selfdefense, and hunting uses.

In the Massachusetts convention, Samuel

Adams proposed “that the said Constitution be never

construed to authorize Congress…to prevent the

people of the United States, who are peaceable

citizens, from keeping their own arms….” 6

Documentary History of the Ratification of the

Constitution 1453 (2000). The New Hampshire

convention demanded that “Congress shall never

disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been

in actual rebellion.” 18 Documentary History of the

Ratification of the Constitution 188 (1995).

In the Virginia convention, George Mason

recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving

America was formed in Great Britain, the British

Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that

it was the best and most effectual way to enslave

them.” 3 Elliot, Debates in the Several State

Conventions 380 (1836). And Patrick Henry

implored: “The great object is, that every man be

armed.” Id. at 386. In ratifying the Constitution, the

Virginia convention proposed a bill of rights adding

to its 1776 militia clause, “That the people have a

right to keep and bear arms….” Id. at 658–59. North

Carolina18 and Rhode Island19 demanded the same,

and New York sought almost identical language.20

James Madison introduced what became the

Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives on

June 8, 1789, including the provision: “The right of

the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia

being the best security of a free country….” 4

Documentary History of the First Federal Congress

10 (1986). Tench Coxe, under the pen name “A

Pennsylvanian,” commented: “As civil rulers…may

attempt to tyrannize, and as the military

forces…might pervert their power to the injury of

their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed…in

their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2. Madison

18 Documentary History of the Ratification of the

Constitution 316.

1 Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions

335 (1836).

18 Documentary History of the Ratification of the

Constitution 298.

thanked Coxe for his “explanatory strictures.” 12

Papers of James Madison 257 (1979).

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791,

and in the same year Congress considered a militia

bill. In debate, Rep. James Jackson urged that it

was their duty “to provide the means for every man

to protect himself as well against tyranny and

usurpation, as against assault and invasion.” 14

Documentary History of the First Federal Congress

56–57 (1995). Rep. Roger Sherman added that it was

“the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most

essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every

attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever

made.” Id. at 92–93. As enacted in 1792, the Militia

Act required each male citizens aged 18-44 to be

enrolled in the militia and to “provide himself with a

good musket or firelock,” including a bayonet, or

“with a good rifle,” both with ammunition. § 1, 1

Stat. 271 (1792).

The Assize of Arms of 1181 establishing the

duty of the subjects to acquire and bear arms was

transformed into a right to have arms for their

defense in the Declaration of Rights of 1689. This

duty-right duality came full circle with the

ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 and

the enactment of the Militia Act a year later. Thomas

Jefferson best expressed this duality in an 1824

letter as follows: “The constitutions of most of our

States assert, that all power is inherent in the

people,… that it is their right and duty to be at all

times armed….” Thomas Jefferson, Writings 1491-92

(1984).

E. The Right to “Arms” Expanded as the

Republic and Technology Grew

As new states, beginning with Kentucky in

1792, began coming into the Union, innovation

continued in the field of firearm technology,

encouraged by the Patent Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I,

§ 8, cl. 8. Thomas Jefferson had observed the use of

interchangeable parts in gun-making in France in

1785, but it would take three decades for the gun

industry to adopt the practice. See Felicia J. Deyrup,

Arms Making in the Connecticut Valley 87–88 (1970).

The need for repeating arms was clear.

Compared to a single-shot long gun that could be

fired once or twice a minute, an Indian on horseback

with a bow and 100 arrows in his quiver “can throw

fifteen or twenty in a minute,” making him “a

formidable and dangerous enemy.” 1 George Catlin,

Letters & Notes on the Manners, Customs, &

Conditions of North American Indians 33 (1844).

The powerful Girandoni air rifle with a

twenty-two-round magazine proved useful on the

Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804.21 The Hall

breechloading rifle, which could be loaded rapidly

from the rear, was patented in 1811. Jim Supica et

al., The Illustrated History of Firearms 55 (2020). In

1821, the Jennings flintlock rifle that would fire

twelve shots before reloading appeared. Id. at 60.

The introduction in 1836 of the Colt revolver, which

had a rifled barrel, changed the landscape forever for

repeating firearms. Charles T. Haven et al., A

Robert D. Beeman, “Girandoni Style Air Rifles &

Pistols” (2007),

http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm.

History of the Colt Revolver 20 (1940). Presiding over

a patent infringement suit brought by Colt, Supreme

Court Justice Levi Woodbury instructed the jury that

Colt “undertook…to get the power, through a

revolver, of having more discharges in a short space

of time than by a single barrel. That is one great

essence of this principle of revolving fire-arms.”

Martin Rywell, The Trial of Samuel Colt 319 (1953).

Designed in 1856, the Volcanic rifle had a

magazine that held between twenty and thirty

cartridges. Robert F. Williamson, Winchester: The

Gun that Won the West 9-13 (1952). This developed

into the Henry Repeating Rifle in 1860, which

evolved into the Winchester Model 1866, which held

seventeen rounds. Id. at 22, 49. These rifles used

rimfire cartridges, but the Winchester 1873’s use of

the new centerfire cartridge prompted its reputation

as “the gun that won the West.” Id. at 66-67.

F. In the Early Republic, Prohibitions on Arms

Were Considered Infringements on the Right

Constitutional commentaries in the early

Republic condemned deprivations of arms as

infringements of the right protected by the Second

Amendment. In the South, slaves were disarmed,

and free persons of color might be licensed to possess

certain firearms as long as not considered “military.”

As applied to citizens, nothing like the regulations

enacted by Cook County and Connecticut were

consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of

firearm regulation.

St. George

Amendment “the

explaining:

Tucker called the Second

true palladium of liberty,”

The right of self defence is the

first law of nature: in most governments

it has been the study of rulers to confine

this right within the narrowest limits

possible. Wherever standing armies are

kept up, and the right of the people to

keep and bear arms is, under any colour

or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,

liberty, if not already annihilated, is on

the brink of destruction.

St.

George

Tucker,

Commentaries (1803), App. 300.

Blackstone’s

The laws and decisions below in this case

would, to say the least, “confine this right within the

narrowest limits.” It would have been unthinkable

to ban a rifle or musket based on how it was held.

Justice Joseph Story wrote:

The right of the citizens to keep and

bear arms…offers a strong moral check

against usurpation and arbitrary power

of the rulers; and will generally, even if

these are successful in the first

instance, enable the people to resist and

triumph over them.

3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

746 (1833).

Confining the people to the most inferior arms

would not allow the people “to resist and triumph”

over “usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers.”

The arms right distinguished a free citizen

from a slave. See St. George Tucker, A Dissertation

on Slavery 55 (1796). The antebellum Southern

states had laws like that of Virginia, which provided

that “[n]o negro or mulatto slave whatsoever shall

keep or carry any gun, powder, shot, club or other

weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive.” Va.

1819, c. 111, § 7. Further, “[n]o free negro or

mulatto, shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder

or lead, without first obtaining a license from the

court” where he resided. Id. § 8.

But after Nat Turner’s slave revolt in 1831,

Virginia repealed the licensing provision and

provided: “No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered

to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military

weapon, or any powder or lead….” Va. 1831, c. 22, §

4. The courts below also have a fixation on what they

call “military” weapons that citizens should not

possess.

G. The Fourteenth Amendment Was

Understood to Protect Common

“Military” Long Guns

The black codes enacted in 1865 banned

freedmen from possession of firearms with “military”

features. South Carolina provided that no person of

color would, without permission, “be allowed to keep

a fire arm,” except “the owner of a farm, may keep a

shot gun or rifle, such as is ordinarily used in

hunting, but not a pistol, musket, or other fire arm or

weapon appropriate for purposes of war.” So. Car.

Stat., No. 4730, § XIII, 250 (1865). The musket, the

epitome of a long gun of the day, was a military

weapon.

During debate on the Freedmen’s Bureau bill,

Rep. Josiah Grinnell noted that “a white man in

Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black man buys a gun

he forfeits it and pays a fine of five dollars, if

presuming to keep in his possession a musket which

he has carried through the war.” Cong. Globe, 39th

Cong., 1st Sess. 651 (1866). That a musket was a

“military” weapon did not disqualify it from

protection. “A rifle [musket] could fire a bullet with

man-killing accuracy over 800 yards….” William B.

Edwards, Civil War Guns 13 (1962). Standard bullets

were .58 caliber weighing 510 grains, id. at 23–24,

while “the bullet weight for a .223 caliber rifle is

typically between 55 to 77 grains.”22 A wound from

either could be devastating, but nothing in America’s

historical tradition exists of banning such long guns.

But that military utility did not preclude

constitutional protection. Muskets also had civilian

uses. A Freedmen’s Bureau official testified that

blacks “are proud of owning a musket or fowlingpiece. They use them often for the destruction of

Rpt. of Jt. Com. on

vermin and game.”

Reconstruction, H.R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st

Sess., pt. 2, at 246 (1866).

During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment,

Senator Samuel Pomeroy described “the safeguards

of liberty” as including “the right to bear arms for the

defense of himself and family,” which would allow a

freedman to protect his cabin with “a well-loaded

musket.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1182

(1866). This Court quoted those words in finding that

“the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and

22 Gary McCloud, What Is the Bullet Weight for a .223

Caliber Rifle? (2024), https://thegunzone.com/what-is-the-bulletweight-for-a-223-caliber-rifle/.

bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of

protection.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.

742, 775 (2010).

James Lewis, a freedman in Mississippi, was

convicted for carrying a musket without a license.

Chief Justice Alexander Handy of Mississippi’s

highest court upheld the conviction, declaring the

federal Civil Rights Act unconstitutional and holding

that the state arms guarantee protected only

citizens.

“The

Civil

Rights

Bill

Declared

Unconstitutional,” N.Y. Times, Oct. 26, 1866, at 2;

see McDonald, 561 U.S. at 775 n.24. General

Ulysses S. Grant noted this decision in a report

stating: “The statute prohibiting the colored people

from bearing arms, without a special license, is

unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional.” Cong.

Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1866).

The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 declared

that “[t]he right…to have full and equal benefit of all

laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty,

personal security, and [property], including the

constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to

and enjoyed by all the citizens….” § 14, 14 Stat. 173,

176–77 (1866). And the arms of that epoch included

military muskets and repeating rifles with

magazines holding multiple rounds, such as the

Spencer and Henry rifles. Edwards, Civil War Guns,

chs. 13 & 14.

In sum, it was understood that the Second and

Fourteenth Amendments would protect the right of

the people – including the newly-freed slaves – to

keep and bear firearms, including long guns used in

military service. Muskets had civilian uses, from

self-defense to hunting.

Today,

AR-15-platform

and

similar

semiautomatic rifles are in common use by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes throughout the

United States.

Banning their possession is

inconsistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of

firearm regulation.

CONCLUSION

The Court should reverse the judgment of the

court below and hold that the following violate the

Second and Fourteenth Amendments: Cook County,

Ill. Code § 54-212(a) (2024), and Conn. Gen. Stat. §§

53-202b, 53-202c, 53-202d, 53-202w(b).

Respectfully submitted,

SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER

Amicus Curiae

STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*

3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 403

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 352-7276

protell@aol.com

*Counsel of Record

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

September 2, 2026

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.