Sheriffs: ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans Are Putting Americans In Danger

Organizations representing thousands of sheriffs across the country are urging the Supreme Court to strike down bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, arguing that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and leave law-abiding Americans more vulnerable to violent criminals.

The National Sheriffs’ Association and Western States Sheriffs’ Association filed an amicus brief Aug. 31 supporting gun owners challenging bans enacted by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.

The National Sheriffs’ Association represents more than 3,000 sheriffs nationwide, while the Western States Sheriffs’ Association includes sheriffs and command staff from 19 states.

Their filing comes ahead of what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings in years.

The Supreme Court agreed June 30 to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two cases challenging restrictions on AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms commonly classified by Democratic-led governments as “assault weapons.”

The cases were brought by gun owners and organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The challengers argue that AR-15-style rifles are owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes and therefore fall squarely within the Second Amendment’s protection of arms “in common use.”

“The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said when the Court accepted the cases.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

The sheriffs’ associations approached the dispute from the perspective of law enforcement and immediate personal protection.

“Law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once and cannot automatically appear instantaneously at the scene of the crime,” the groups wrote.

“Response times may vary from a few minutes to half an hour depending on manpower and geographical area. And a violent crime, especially a home invasion, can occur in seconds.”

“The only viable option for an innocent citizen to have immediate protection is to have a weapon for self-defense,” the brief continued.

The sheriffs argued that prohibiting commonly owned rifles does little to disarm criminals, who frequently obtain firearms through theft, illegal trafficking or black-market transactions.

“Violent criminals generally do not shop at gun stores to legally purchase weapons to commit violent crimes,” the filing states. “They generally steal weapons or obtain them on the black market.”

“The criminals will have weapons. Criminals don’t follow gun laws.”

According to the law-enforcement organizations, the practical effect of an AR-15 ban is to restrict Americans who comply with licensing, background-check and purchasing requirements while doing little to stop people already willing to break the law.

“When we disarm law-abiding citizens, we make them vulnerable,” the sheriffs wrote.

The brief also challenges the terminology routinely used by gun-control advocates.

AR-15s and similar civilian rifles are semiautomatic firearms. They fire one round with each pull of the trigger and are not machine guns, which continue firing automatically while the trigger remains depressed.

The sheriffs argue that an AR-15 operates on the same basic semiautomatic principle as numerous handguns and traditional rifles that remain legal.

The dispute centers on whether governments can prohibit a weapon that is widely owned by law-abiding citizens by labeling it unusually dangerous or associating its appearance and certain features with military firearms.

Cook County has restricted designated semiautomatic rifles since the 1990s. Its current ordinance prohibits the sale, transfer and possession of firearms including certain AR-15 and AK-47 variants, along with magazines exceeding the county’s legal capacity limits.

Connecticut enacted its state ban following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and expanded it in 2023. The law prohibits more than 180 specifically identified firearm models, along with rifles possessing certain combinations of regulated features.

Lower federal courts upheld both restrictions.

The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Cook County, while the Second Circuit concluded that Connecticut’s restrictions were consistent with the country’s historical tradition of regulating weapons considered unusually dangerous.

The Supreme Court will now determine whether those rulings can be reconciled with its major Second Amendment precedents.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Constitution protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense inside the home.

The Court later ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that modern gun restrictions must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Gun-rights advocates argue that neither decision allows governments to ban firearms simply because lawmakers believe they are particularly dangerous.

They point to Heller’s protection of weapons “in common use” and argue that the enormous number of AR-15-style rifles owned by Americans makes their constitutional status clear.

Supporters of the bans contend that AR-15s possess exceptional destructive capacity and have repeatedly been used in mass shootings.

Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has pledged to defend the ordinance before the Supreme Court.

“These weapons of war are designed to inflict the maximum amount of carnage and destruction and have no place in our communities,” Burke said after the Court accepted the case.

“We will not back down from defending Cook County’s long-standing ban on assault weapons.”

Illinois’ statewide Protect Illinois Communities Act is not directly before the Supreme Court in the Cook County case, but it could be profoundly affected by the eventual ruling.

Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed the law in 2023 following the Highland Park parade shooting.

The measure prohibits numerous semiautomatic rifles and restricts magazines holding more than 10 rounds for long guns or more than 15 rounds for handguns, subject to limited exceptions and grandfathering requirements.

U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled that major portions of the law violated the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed his decision July 9 in a divided 2-1 ruling.

The appeals court accepted the argument that governments possess a historical authority to regulate weapons considered “unusually dangerous” or “particularly capable of unprecedented lethality.”

The sheriffs’ brief attacks that reasoning directly.

Its authors maintain that popularity among law-abiding citizens, not a legislature’s chosen label, should determine whether a firearm receives constitutional protection.

A sweeping Supreme Court ruling against Cook County and Connecticut could jeopardize similar restrictions in approximately a dozen states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington.

The justices are expected to hear arguments during the term beginning in October, with a decision likely by summer 2027.

For millions of lawful gun owners, the core issue is straightforward: whether state and local governments can ban one of America’s most commonly owned rifles even though the Second Amendment expressly protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Now thousands of sheriffs are telling the Supreme Court that disarming those citizens will not stop criminals, but it could leave innocent families defenseless when seconds matter and police are still minutes away.