Women for Gun Rights marking its tenth anniversary with this kind of victory lap is more than symbolic—it’s a reminder that the post-Bruen landscape rewards persistence over panic. Holly Sullivan’s Connecticut Citizens Defense League has spent years methodically documenting how the state’s “assault weapon” ban sweeps in the very semiautomatic rifles that millions of law-abiding citizens choose for home defense, competition, and collecting—the same platforms the Supreme Court in Heller called “in common use.” By granting cert in Grant v. Lamont, the justices are signaling they may finally confront the post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association reality that a handful of states still treat the core of the Second Amendment like a regulatory loophole rather than a constitutional command.

What makes the case especially potent is its timing and scope. With the Court’s conservative majority intact and several circuits already split on whether features-based bans survive Bruen’s text-and-history test, a ruling could either ratify the emerging nationwide trend toward shall-issue carry and common-use protection or hand anti-gun attorneys general a roadmap for ever-more inventive restrictions. For the 2A community, the stakes are straightforward: if Connecticut’s ban falls, it weakens the legal architecture supporting similar prohibitions in California, New York, Illinois, and beyond; if it stands, expect an immediate wave of copycat legislation dressed up as “sensitive place” or “sensitive feature” rules. Either way, the decision will shape the next decade of litigation, legislation, and the practical ability of ordinary citizens—especially women who increasingly cite personal protection as their reason for owning firearms—to exercise the right the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to secure against state infringement.