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

Nos. 25-238, 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 COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH AND SECOND CIRCUITS

_________________________________________________

Brief for Amici Curiae the U.S. Sportsmen’s

Alliance Foundation and Safari Club International

in Support of the Petitioners

_________________________________________________

MICHAEL T. JEAN

Counsel of Record

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

Foundation

801 Kingsmill Parkway

Columbus, Ohio 43229

(248) 508-9765

MJean@sportsmensalliance.org

Counsel for U.S. Sportsmen’s

Alliance Foundation

September 4, 2026

REGINA LENNOX

MADELINE DEMASKE

Safari Club

International

501 2nd Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 543-8733

litigation@safariclub.org

Counsel for Safari Club

International

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. i

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

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

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

ARGUMENT ...............................................................4

I. SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES ARE ARMS IN

COMMON USE FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES,

INCLUDING HUNTING. ..................................5

A. Semi-automatic rifles are arms covered by

the plain text of the Second Amendment.......5

B. Any firearms used for hunting are arms

protected by the Second Amendment.............5

1. The Second Amendment historically

protected arms that were commonly used for

hunting. .............................................................5

2. Semi-automatic firearms are commonly

used for hunting in the United States. .............9

C. Semi-automatic rifles are not dangerous and

unusual. .........................................................11

1. The government cannot ban protected

arms by merely claiming that they are

dangerous. .......................................................11

2. Protected arms cannot be banned because

a subset of the population uses them illegally.

12

D. The banned features are not dangerous and

unusual. .........................................................13

ii

II. THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR BANNING

A CLASS OF COMMONLY OWNED ARMS. .15

A. The semi-automatic rifle bans fail under a

straightforward application of Heller and

Bruen. ............................................................15

B. This case does not call for a more nuanced

approach. .......................................................16

CONCLUSION ..........................................................17

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,

413 U.S. 266 (1973) ..............................................11

Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of

New Jersey, 183 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2026)........ 9, 12

Caetano v. Massachusetts,

577 U.S. 411 (2016) ................................................9

District of Columbia v. Heller,

554 U.S. 570 (2008) .................. 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16

Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”),

670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ............ 5, 10, 13, 14

Miller v. Bonta,

542 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (S.D. Cal. 2021) ........... 14, 15

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen,

597 U.S. 1 (2022) ................................ 3, 4, 9, 15, 16

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New

York, 590 U.S. 336 (2020) ......................................14

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo,

804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) ..................................15

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo,

990 F. Supp. 2d 349 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) ..................14

Se. Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad,

420 U.S. 546 (1975) ..............................................12

Stenberg v. Carhart,

530 U.S. 914 (2000) ..............................................12

United States v. Rahimi,

602 U.S. 680 (2024) ............................................4, 8

iv

Wolford v. Lopez,

146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026) .............................. 4, 5, 6, 11

Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 921(a) ......................................................13

18 U.S.C. § 922(a) ......................................................13

18 U.S.C. § 922(b) ......................................................13

Code of Ordinances of Cook Cnty., Ill.,

§ 54-211(1) ...................................................... 13, 14

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202a .......................................13

Other Authorities

Adams, John S., Montana Supreme Court:

VanDyke takes the spotlight, Great Falls

Tribune (Sept. 17, 2014) .......................................10

Bellesiles, Michael A., Firearms Regulation:

A Historical Overview, 28 Crime & Just.

137 (2001) ...........................................................7, 8

Blumm, Michael C., & Ritchie, Lucus, The Pioneer

Spirit and the Public Trust: The American Rule

of Capture and State Ownership of Wildlife,

35 Envtl. L. 673 (2005) ................................... 6, 7, 8

Churchill, Robert H., Gun Regulation, the Police

Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early

America: The Legal Context of the Second

Amendment, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 139 (2007) .......9

Drabold, Will, Here Are 7 Animals Hunters

Kill Using an AR-15, Time Magazine

(July 6, 2016) ........................................................10

Favre, David S., Wildlife Rights: The Ever-Widening

Circle, 9 Envtl. L. 241 (1979) .................................7

v

Lueck, Dean, The Economic Nature of Wildlife Law,

81 J. Legal Stud. 291 (1989) ..................................7

Smith, Mark W., NYSRPA v. Bruen: A Supreme

Court Victory for the Right to Keep and Bear

Arms—and a Strong Rebuke to “Inferior Courts”,

24 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y Per Curium 1 (2022).....16

Spitzer, Robert J., Gun Law History in the

U.S. & Second Amend. Rights, 80 L. & Contemp.

Probs. 55 (2017) ......................................................8

Usman, Jeffrey O., The Game is Afoot:

Constitutionalizing the Right to Hunt and

Fish in the Tennessee Constitution,

77 Tenn. L. Rev. 57 (2009) .....................................8

Treatises

2 Blackstone, Commentaries (St. George

Tucker ed. 1803) .................................................7, 8

2 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the

Laws of England (1766) .........................................6

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation

(“Sportsmen’s Alliance”) is an Ohio-based organization, incorporated under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal

Revenue Code. It is dedicated to promoting and educating the public about our hunting, fishing, and trapping heritage, and science-based wildlife management. Sportsmen’s Alliance achieves its mission

through public education and issue research, conducted both on its own and through partnerships with

local sportsmen and conservation organizations. It

also engages in litigation to protect hunting, trapping,

fishing, and scientific wildlife management. Sportsmen’s Alliance has organizational members, including

its parallel entity, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, an

I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) nonprofit, whose membership consists of sportsmen from across the country, including

from Connecticut and Illinois.

Safari Club International (“SCI”) is an Internal

Revenue Code § 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization incorporated in Arizona and headquartered in Washington, DC. SCI has approximately 100,000 members and

advocates and 180 chapters across the country and

around the world. SCI has thousands of members and

two chapters in Connecticut and Illinois. SCI’s missions include promoting hunting and sustainable-use

conservation, as well as educating the public, courts,

and policymakers about hunting and its role as a conIn accordance with Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae

certifies that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by

counsel for any party and that no person or entity other than

amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel has made a monetary

contribution for the preparation or submission of this brief.

1

2

servation and wildlife management tool. In advancing

its missions, SCI advocates for expanding and protecting hunting access, which includes the use of firearms

as a common method of harvesting game. SCI regularly intervenes in litigation that threatens the rights

of SCI members and other hunters to use certain firearms or ammunition for hunting.

Sportsmen’s Alliance and SCI have an interest in

defending the Second Amendment. Firearms are part

and parcel of our hunting heritage. Hunting is one of

the core, lawful purposes for which arms can be kept

under the Second Amendment, and many people place

a higher value on hunting than some of the more frequently cited purposes behind the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 583

n.7, 599 (2008). The firearms at issue in this case are

in common use for hunting, and Sportsmen’s Alliance

and SCI have an interest in ensuring that point is

fully presented. This presentation will aid the Court

in deciding this case.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In Heller, this Court held that handguns, the

most popular type of firearm in the country, could not

be banned under the Second Amendment. Now it

must decide if semi-automatic rifles, the second most

popular type of firearm owned by ordinary Americans,

can be banned under the Second Amendment. The answer is no.

Semi-automatic rifles are arms under the plain

meaning of the Second Amendment. They have been

and currently are used for lawful purposes, including

hunting, which is the focus of this brief.

3

Hunters have been using semi-automatic rifles

for over a century. The AR-15 rifle is one of the most

commonly used. Its popularity turns on a number of

factors: ease of use, weight and portability, affordability, adaptability, and more. It is regularly used for

wildlife management, predator hunting, and mediumto-large game hunting.

Any arm commonly used for hunting cannot be

banned under the Second Amendment. The Second

Amendment is a direct repudiation of classist European laws that prohibited common people from owning firearms and harvesting game. Moreover, in this

country’s early years, ordinary Americans were expected to assemble for militia duty with their arms,

and many did so with their hunting firearms. The

founders would not have imagined banning these

arms.

Nor are semi-automatic rifles dangerous and unusual. They are the second most popular type of firearm, due in large part to their use in recreational

shooting and hunting. They are rarely used in

crimes—far less than handguns, the most popular

type of firearm. The government cannot ban them by

falsely labeling them “assault weapons.” Moreover,

the banned features are not dangerous or unusual.

They are incremental improvements to traditional

grips, stocks, forearms, and muzzles—not dramatic

technological advances.

Accordingly, the bans that Cook County and Connecticut have enacted fail under a straightforward application of Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol

Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Court

should strike them down.

4

ARGUMENT

“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at

17. And “[o]nly 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. (citation omitted).

At the first step of the textual analysis, the Court

considers three “subsidiary questions”: first, “does the

law apply to ‘the people’—which is to say, to ‘all members of the political community’?”; second, “does it concern any form of ‘Arms,’ i.e., any weapon customarily

used for offensive or defensive purposes?”; and third

“does the law place any restrictions on … the ‘keeping’

(i.e., possession) … of arms?” Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S.

Ct. 2032, 2043 (2026). If the answers are yes, as they

are

here, 2

the

law

“is

presumptively

unconstitutional.” Id. at 2044.

That leads to the second step, where the government “bears the burden to ‘justify its regulation.’”

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 691 (2024)

(quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24). It must show that the

regulation is “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear

arms.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 19. The semi-automatic rifle

bans at issue here fail this straightforward test.

The only subsidiary question at issue here is whether

semi-automatic rifles are arms. It is undeniable that bans

enacted by Cook County and the State of Connecticut apply to

ordinary Americans and to the possession of arms.

2

5

I.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC

RIFLES

ARE

ARMS IN COMMON USE FOR LAWFUL

PURPOSES, INCLUDING HUNTING.

A. Semi-automatic rifles are arms covered

by the plain text of the Second

Amendment.

Semi-automatic rifles are clearly arms under the

Second Amendment. They are “customarily used for

offensive or defensive purposes.” Wolford, 146 S. Ct.

at 2043. They fall within the plain meaning of the

term, as the founders would have understood it. See

Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (collecting founding era dictionary definitions). Moreover, “[t]here is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between

semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles.”

Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 670 F.3d

1244, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). Semi-automatic rifles, therefore, are protected

under the plain meaning of the Second Amendment,

just as handguns are.

B. Any firearms used for hunting are arms

protected by the Second Amendment.

Although additional historical analysis is not required at step one, the historical analysis confirms

that semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second

Amendment because they are commonly used for lawful hunting. Heller, 554 U.S. at 599.

1. The Second Amendment historically

protected arms that were commonly

used for hunting.

The Court has been clear that the founders’ “‘central’ concern” behind the Second Amendment was “se-

6

curing the fundamental right of self-defense.”

Wolford, 146 S. Ct. at 2042 (citation omitted). The

need was particularly acute in the late 18th century,

when the lack of police forces meant that the American people were left on their own to defend themselves. But self-defense is not the only reason the right

to keep and bear arms was secured “among the other

treasured liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.” Id.

Indeed, “most Americans in the late 18th century also

‘undoubtedly thought’ that the codified Second

Amendment was ‘important for hunting,’ which, particularly for those moving west, was an important

source of sustenance.” Id. at 2042 n.4 (citation omitted).

There was good reason to protect arms used for

hunting. Common people (i.e., those who were not

among the peerage) could not hunt in the European

feudal system, which required keeping them “in as

low a condition as possible, and especially to prohibit

them the use of arms. Nothing could do this more effectually than a prohibition of hunting and sporting….” 2 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the

Laws of England 413 (1766). Accordingly, game was

managed “for the benefit of the king and his favored

subjects.” Michael C. Blumm & Lucus Ritchie, The Pioneer Spirit and the Public Trust: The American Rule

of Capture and State Ownership of Wildlife, 35 Envtl.

L. 673, 680 (2005). If an ordinary individual hunted

without the King’s blessing, he could be punished “by

castration, banishment, and even death.” Id. King

James I made the Crown’s position clear in dismissing

the idea that common people should be able to keep

arms for hunting: “‘It is not fit that clowns should have

these sports.’” Michael A. Bellesiles, Firearms Regula-

7

tion: A Historical Overview, 28 Crime & Just. 137,

140–41 (2001) (citation omitted).

To keep common men from hunting, Parliament

passed “game laws” or “qualification acts,” which were

in effect from 1389 to 1831. Dean Lueck, The Economic Nature of Wildlife Law, 81 J. Legal Stud. 291,

293 (1989). Under these laws, only men who owned

significant quantities of income-producing land (estimated at over 350 acres), were the “‘son or heir-apparent of an esquire, or other person of higher degree,’” or

had authorization from the Crown could hunt. Id. at

294, n.14. Anyone who was not qualified under the

statute was prohibited from hunting and “restricted

from owning hounds and other ‘engines’ (such as guns,

traps, and nets) used to kill game.” Id. As a further

example, the Game Act of 1671 declared that possession of a firearm by an unqualified person automatically established an intent to hunt and authorized the

seizure of the firearm. Bellesiles, Firearms Regulation, at 141. Thus, these qualification laws also served

as a pretext for depriving people of their rights to selfdefense, in the name of protecting wildlife. 2 Blackstone, Commentaries, 414 n.3 (St. George Tucker ed.

1803).

“During the early years of the colonial period,

Americans tried to adopt the English class system and

the English method of controlling wildlife.” David S.

Favre, Wildlife Rights: The Ever-Widening Circle, 9

Envtl. L. 241, 247 (1979). That did not last long.

“‘America’s early settlers promptly rejected their

mother country’s legacy of conditioning the right to

take game on wealth and birthright.’” Blumm &

Ritchie, The Pioneer Spirit and the Public Trust, at

685 (citation omitted). Nineteenth-century courts con-

8

sistently rejected qualification laws as “‘productive of

tyranny’” and “‘contrary to the spirit of our institutions.’” Id. at 685 n.77 (collecting authorities). In fact,

St. George Tucker observed that the Second Amendment gives “hope” that “the people,” not just “independent country gentleman,” will hold the right to

keep and bear arms “as the surest pledge of their liberty.” 2 Blackstone, Commentaries at 414 n.3 (St.

George Tucker ed., 1803). 3

After rejecting the class-based system of hunting,

States affirmatively allowed (and continue to allow)

hunting using firearms. E.g., Robert J. Spitzer, Gun

Law History in the U.S. & Second Amend. Rights, 80

L. & Contemp. Probs. 55, 60 (2017); Jeffrey O. Usman,

The Game is Afoot: Constitutionalizing the Right to

Hunt and Fish in the Tennessee Constitution, 77 Tenn.

L. Rev. 57, 80–81 (2009).

As access to hunting with firearms for the common man expanded, the common man’s choice of arms

for militia service reflected this focus and common

use. “Throughout early American history, militiamen

routinely came to muster with hunting weapons of all

kinds. Muskets, rifles and fowling pieces, and ‘smooth

bored guns or firelocks,’ were commonly recorded on

official reports of militia armament, and Revolutionary militiamen often went into battle with whatever

3 Unfortunately, the lessons from the past were not always

remembered: “all the southern states had race-based restrictions

on hunting, militia membership, and gun ownership that had

been actively enforced in the antebellum period.” Bellesiles,

Firearms Regulation at 159. But these should be remembered

only as cautionary tales and not incorporated into modern

constitutional jurisprudence. Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 775–76

(Thomas, J., dissenting).

9

weapons came to hand.” Robert H. Churchill, Gun

Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep

Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 139, 167 (2007).

“The keeping of” these arms “by individual citizens

was a private act rendered immune from state interference because it facilitated the public act of collective self-defense.” Id.

2. Semi-automatic firearms are commonly

used for hunting in the United States.

The historical tradition confirms that arms were

commonly used for hunting. And modern evidence

confirms that semi-automatic rifles are “‘in common

use’” today and are not in any way “‘highly unusual in

society at large.’” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 47 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627). Tens of millions of Americans

own semi-automatic sporting rifles and use them for

lawful purposes. Recently, a court “found that there

are around 24 million AR-15s and similar sports

weapons in circulation—a figure that is surpassed

only by the number of registered handgun owners

within the United States.” Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol

Clubs, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of New Jersey, 183 F.4th 211,

241 (3d Cir. 2026). That figure dwarfs the roughly

200,000 civilians who owned stun guns and tasers

when the Court held that they were protected under

the Second Amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts,

577 U.S. 411, 420 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring).

Hunting is one of the primary purposes for owning and using a semi-automatic rifle. Many Americans

use these firearms for predator hunting, varmint control, and medium- to big-game hunting, depending on

which ammunition is chambered. “Semiautomatic rifles,” such as the Winchester Models 1903, 1905, 1907,

10

and 1910, “have been used to hunt since the early

1900s.” Will Drabold, Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill

Using an AR-15, Time Magazine (July 6, 2016), available at https://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15semiautomatic-rifles/. In fact, just before Colt introduced the AR-15 to the civilian market in 1963, it advertised the firearm as a “superb hunting partner.” Id.

That statement is still true.

AR-platform firearms are commonly used for

hunting for a number of reasons. Their relatively light

weight and ability to be taken down allows them to be

carried in backpacks on goat hunts in the Hawaiian

mountains. Id. For animals that travel in packs and

move quickly—like hogs in Texas, antelope jackrabbits in Arizona, coyotes in Maine, or seals (harvested

by native subsistence hunters) in Alaska—a second

shot can be fired quickly without taking an eye off the

target or moving the hand to work the bolt. Id. Even

federal judges have been known to enjoy hunting with

semi-automatic rifles. John S. Adams, Montana

Supreme Court: VanDyke takes the spotlight, Great

Falls Tribune (Sept. 17, 2014), available at

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2

014/09/17/vandyke-politician-nature/15812491/

(“‘Plus semi-auto firearms are fun to hunt elk with, as

the attached picture attests.’” (quoting an email from

then Solicitor General of Montana Lawrence

VanDyke)).

It is no surprise then that courts have found,

“[s]emi-automatic rifles … are in common use by lawabiding citizens for … hunting, and other lawful uses.”

Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1269 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). Accordingly, semi-automatic rifles are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

11

C. Semi-automatic

rifles

dangerous and unusual.

are

not

Cook County and Connecticut seek to subvert the

Second Amendment’s text and the people’s historical

tradition by asserting that semi-automatic rifles are

“dangerous and unusual” and fall outside of the Second Amendment’s protections. See Heller, 554 U.S. at

627. But semi-automatic rifles are neither. The government cannot nullify the Second Amendment by invoking these words, or by relying on limited data suggesting that a small subset misuses these arms.

1. The

government

cannot

ban

protected arms by merely claiming

that they are dangerous.

Firearms cannot be banned merely by claiming

they are dangerous. Arms covered by the Second

Amendment are “customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes.” Wolford, 146 S. Ct. at 2043. They

include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence,

or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or

strike another.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (citation omitted). Under that definition, all arms have the potential to be dangerous. Their dangerous potential is

what makes them valuable for hunting and defense in

the first place. The Second Amendment would be

meaningless, however, if anything classified as “dangerous” to regulators could be banned. Cf. AlmeidaSanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 (1973)

(“The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards”).

12

Yet, these common arms are banned under the

false pretense of being so-called “assault weapons.”

First, that is a made-up and intentionally pejorative

term. “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not

exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term,

developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as

many additional firearms as possible on the basis of

undefined evil appearance.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530

U.S. 914, 1001 n.16 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). And second, that is insufficient to justify a restriction on an enumerated, fundamental

right. “While the State is welcome to market its policy

goals using catchy slogans, the rights of our Republic

are built on sturdier stuff.” Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol

Clubs, 183 F.4th at 262 (Matey, J., concurring)

(cleaned up). Cook County and Connecticut cannot defend their broad bans on the possession and use of

arms with bare labels that are unsupported by data,

history, or common sense.

2. Protected arms cannot be banned

because a subset of the population

uses them illegally.

Nor can these governments escape the Constitution just because some people misuse protected arms.

“[A] free society prefers to punish the few who

abuse [their] rights … after they break the law than

to throttle them and all others beforehand.” Se.

Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 559 (1975).

This is true when it comes to the Second Amendment.

The Court has already held that handguns may not be

banned despite “the problem of handgun violence in

this country.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. “Moreover,

semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with

13

violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles

are.” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1269–70 (Kavanaugh, J.,

dissenting). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crime Data Explorer, 68,893 homicides

were committed with handguns over the last decade,

while rifles—all types of rifles, not just semiautomatic rifles—accounted for 4,214 homicides, a

small fraction of the handgun number. FBI, Crime

Data

Explorer,

available

at

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/expl

orer/crime/shr.

Thus, semi-automatic rifles are not dangerous

and unusual, nor are they the preferred firearm for

criminals. They are used in homicides 94% less than

handguns are.

D. The

banned

features

dangerous and unusual.

are

not

Cook County’s ordinance defines assault weapon

as a “semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:” (A) a pistol

grip; (B) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand;

(C) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; (D) a

barrel shroud; or (E) a “muzzle brake or muzzle compensator.” Code of Ordinances of Cook Cnty., Ill., § 54211(1). Connecticut’s definition shares many of the

same features but also includes flash suppressors and

grenade launchers. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53202a(1)(E)(i). Aside from grenade launchers, which

are federally banned destructive devices, 18 U.S.C. §§

921(a)(4), 922(a)(4), (b)(4), these features are not dangerous and unusual.

Start with the pistol grip. Some courts have ac-

14

cepted the argument that pistol grips make the rifle

easier to shoot from the hip. Heller II, 670 F.3d at

1262–63; N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.

Cuomo, 990 F. Supp. 2d 349, 370 (W.D.N.Y. 2013),

aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015).

But this falls apart under any “serious probing.” N.Y.

State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 590

U.S. 336, 370 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting). Anyone

who pretends to hold a rifle with a vertical grip at

their hip would instantly realize (1) it is not a comfortable position for the wrist to be in and (2) one could

get a better, more comfortable grip on a more traditional rifle stock at the hip.

Vertical or protruding forward grips for the nontrigger hand do not make the firearm easier to shoot

from the hip. One would have to stretch their forward

arm farther to reach it. But they primarily allow for

more accurate shooting from the shoulder. Miller v.

Bonta, 542 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1035 n.48 (S.D. Cal.

2021), vacated and remanded, No. 21-55608, 2022 WL

3095986 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022).

A telescoping stock allows the firearm’s length to

be adjusted and fitted properly to operators with different arm lengths. Id. at 1036. A folding stock allows

the firearm to be transported and stored more easily

by reducing its size. But “it does not make a rifle easily

concealable for most criminal activities.” Id. These assumptions are not based in fact.

A barrel shroud, as the Cook County ordinance

declares, “allow[s] the bearer to hold the firearm with

the non-trigger hand without being burned.” Code of

Ordinances of Cook Cnty., Ill., § 54-211(1)(D). It does

not function any differently than traditional wooden

forearms do.

15

A muzzle brake reduces the firearm’s recoil by

venting and redirecting some of the expelled gas upward or to the sides instead of it all exiting the end of

the barrel. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.

Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 268 (2d Cir. 2015).

And lastly, a flash suppressor prevents the

shooter from being blinded by their muzzle flash when

shooting in dark conditions. Miller, 542 F. Supp. 3d at

1035.

These features are incremental improvements to

traditional firearm parts that allow the firearm to be

better controlled—which is why they are popular with

hunters. They are not dangerous. And just as important, they are standard features on the second

most popular type of firearm in the country. They cannot be unusual.

II.

THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR

BANNING A CLASS OF COMMONLY

OWNED ARMS.

A. The semi-automatic rifle bans fail

under a straightforward application

of Heller and Bruen.

The semi-automatic rifle bans fail the “fairly

straightforward” inquiry under Bruen. 597 U.S. at 26.

“[W]hen a challenged regulation addresses a general

societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century,” the Court looks to “the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem” or

whether “earlier generations addressed the societal

problem … through materially different means.” Id.

16

Bruen explains how Heller is an example of a regulation failing the straightforward analysis. Id. at 27.

The perceived societal problem was handgun violence

in urban areas. Id. That was not a unique problem,

and the Court noted that the founders could have enacted a similar ban but did not. Id. Rather, they chose

not to ban firearms used for self-defense. Accordingly,

the Second Amendment forbids the “prohibition of an

entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by

American society for that lawful purpose.” Heller, 554

U.S. at 628. The Respondents have imposed such

blanket prohibitions for the same perceived societal

problem. The case is on all fours of Heller, and semiautomatic rifle bans should be struck down.

B. This case does not call for a more

nuanced approach.

This is not a case concerning “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes

[that] may require a more nuanced approach.” Bruen,

597 U.S. at 27. As discussed above, the case concerns

modest improvements to traditional grips, stocks,

forearms, and muzzles—all of which benefit hunters.

Further, the founders were aware that some would

misuse firearms. See, e.g., Mark W. Smith, NYSRPA

v. Bruen: A Supreme Court Victory for the Right to

Keep and Bear Arms—and a Strong Rebuke to “Inferior Courts”, 24 Harv. J.L. Pub. Pol’y Per Curium 1, 9

(2022). But “the right to keep and bear arms was ‘understood to be an individual right protecting against

both public and private violence.’” Bruen, 597 U.S. at

45 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 594).

*

*

*

In the aggregate, semi-automatic rifles are com-

17

monly used for lawful purposes like hunting and have

been for over a century. They do not trigger new societal concerns or represent dramatic technological

changes; rather, they reflect a choice by American

hunters to use a light, comfortable, customizable, and

flexible arm well-suited to modern needs. The semiautomatic rifle bans enacted by Cook County and

Connecticut fail a straightforward application of

Heller and Bruen and should be struck down accordingly.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

courts of appeals should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL T. JEAN

Counsel of Record

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

Foundation

801 Kingsmill Parkway

Columbus, Ohio 43229

(248) 508-9765

MJean@sportsmensalliance.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Sportsmen’s Alliance

Foundation

REGINA LENNOX

MADELINE DEMASKE

Safari Club International

501 2nd Street NE

18

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 543-8733

litigation@safariclub.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Safari Club International