Giffords Asks Court to Overrule Bruen If Rifle Bans Fall, Virginia Says AR-15s Aren't 'Arms'

Giffords Law Center asked the Supreme Court on October 28 to overrule Bruen, its 2022 gun-rights decision, if that decision requires striking down the rifle bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. Virginia filed its own brief the same day and argues that AR-15s are not protected “Arms” at all.

Both support the governments in Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238, from the Seventh Circuit) and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566, from the Second Circuit). The Court granted review and consolidated the cases on June 30, 2026, according to the docket. It allotted one hour and set argument for December 2, 2026.

The two briefs were among 40 friend-of-the-court briefs that landed on the docket on October 28, all on the governments’ side. The filers include Massachusetts, New Jersey, 16 other states and the District of Columbia, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Center, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the New York City Police Department, Chicago and 23 other cities and counties, and families of Sandy Hook, Parkland and Highland Park victims.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen told courts to judge gun laws on text and history alone and dropped the step that weighed a law’s costs and benefits. United States v. Rahimi (2024) then said a modern law need only be consistent with the principles behind the country’s regulatory tradition.

Giffords, a survivor-led nonprofit, says in its brief that Bruen does not compel striking the bans. But if petitioners are right that it does, it says, Bruen is unworkable and must be overruled. It adds that Wolford v. Lopez, a 2026 decision, appeared to move away from Rahimi’s clarification.

Giffords points to a split among appeals courts. The en banc Third Circuit invalidated New Jersey’s comparable law, breaking from the Second, Fourth and Seventh Circuits, which decided Lamont, Bianchi v. Brown and Barnett v. Raoul. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Diaz wrote in Bianchi that “either the Bruen framework is failing, or we are.”

Virginia, represented by Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge for Attorney General Jay Jones, argues that AR-15s are not protected “Arms.” Its reasoning starts from Heller (2008), which let states restrict machineguns. AR-15s, it says, differ only in having semiautomatic fire, and bump stocks, auto sears and forced-reset triggers narrow that gap. It says a 3-D printed auto sear costs a marginal $5.00.

Virginia also disputes that AR-15s are in common use for self-defense. It cites one study in which rifles were four percent of defensive firearm uses and handguns 90 percent. It cites FBI data covering more than 20 years and 400 active-shooter incidents that showed one civilian intervening with an assault weapon. The brief rejects the federal government’s amicus position that all firearms are protected “Arms,” and says its points hold at Bruen’s second step too.

Virginia has its own stake. It enacted Senate Bill 749 this year, which makes it a crime to buy or sell an assault firearm, with exceptions and a grandfather clause, under Va. Code § 18.2-287.4:1(B)-(C). Two Virginia circuit courts issued preliminary injunctions, one statewide, and those courts and others later stayed their cases. The stays include a federal suit, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, stayed on July 28, 2026.

The briefs differ on scale. Virginia says 11 states and the District of Columbia, over 34 percent of the U.S. population, restrict AR-15s. Giffords cites a respondents’ brief figure of 35 percent. The Court hears the consolidated cases on December 2.