Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of AR-15 Bans in Combined Cases

July 2, 2026
11:12 am

▶

Listen to Article

https://youtu.be/IVcoBD_Q0Ao Case BackgroundThe U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two consolidated cases—Vera Montes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—originating from Connecticut and Illinois. The central question is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles, a matter that could affect multiple state-level restrictions nationwide.Host’s Analysis and OutlookThe host of The VSO Gun Channel expressed guarded optimism, citing recent precedent such as Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen, Rahimi, and the newly decided United States v. Rahimi-adjacent Himmani ruling. He argued that AR-15s qualify as “paradigmatic American arms” and that the Court’s logic in Himmani—that a firearm’s defensive utility is not limited by arbitrary metrics—makes a favorable outcome likely.Pros: Strong textual and historical grounding; recent Supreme Court decisions favor an expansive view of protected arms; potential nationwide impact on existing bans.Cons: Uncertainty surrounding Justice Roberts’ vote; risk that the Court may defer to Congress on related 14th Amendment issues rather than resolve them judicially.Specs: The petition asks only whether semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are constitutionally protected; oral arguments are scheduled for the next term.Key Quote“If the Second Amendment does not protect it, what could it possibly protect?” the host asked, summarizing the petition’s core argument.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

Case Background

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two consolidated cases—Vera Montes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—originating from Connecticut and Illinois. The central question is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles, a matter that could affect multiple state-level restrictions nationwide.

Host’s Analysis and Outlook

The host of The VSO Gun Channel expressed guarded optimism, citing recent precedent such as Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen, Rahimi, and the newly decided United States v. Rahimi-adjacent Himmani ruling. He argued that AR-15s qualify as “paradigmatic American arms” and that the Court’s logic in Himmani—that a firearm’s defensive utility is not limited by arbitrary metrics—makes a favorable outcome likely.

Pros: Strong textual and historical grounding; recent Supreme Court decisions favor an expansive view of protected arms; potential nationwide impact on existing bans.
Cons: Uncertainty surrounding Justice Roberts’ vote; risk that the Court may defer to Congress on related 14th Amendment issues rather than resolve them judicially.
Specs: The petition asks only whether semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are constitutionally protected; oral arguments are scheduled for the next term.