Supreme Court takes up local bans on AR-15 rifles for next term

The Supreme Court in its next term will hear challenges to local bans on the AR-15 rifle, one of the most popular firearms in the country.Why it matters: The court previously rejected a case challenging Maryland's ban on the AR-15, but Tuesday's grant suggests the justices are interested in reviewing the restrictions in light of recent decisions expanding citizens' access to firearms.The court Tuesday said it would take up two cases challenging AR-15 restrictions in Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut for the term beginning in October.There are an estimated 30 million AR- and AK-style rifles in circulation in America.What they're saying: Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled his willingness to take up states' semiautomatic rifle bans when the court rejected challenges to Maryland's law in June 2025."AR–15s are semi-automatic, but so too are most handguns. ... Law-abiding citizens use both AR–15s and handguns for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home," he wrote in a dissent.Gun rights advocates seized on Kavanaugh's dissent after federal Circuit Courts split over whether the state bans are lawful.They argued AR-15s are "in common use" for self-defense, as the Supreme Court set out in its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen."The AR-15 platform rifle is the modern descendant of the rifles that were borne by the militiamen of the Revolution and the pioneers who struck out West in search of a better life. The question can be fairly asked, if the Second Amendment does not protect it, what could it possibly protect?" gun rights advocates wrote in their brief challenging Cook County's ban.The other side: "For over three decades, the democratically elected officials of respondent Cook County, Illinois, have been faced with the overwhelming, mounting, and unrefuted evidence showing that assault rifles are the weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists set on quickly massacring innocents, but are rarely put to lawful public use," Cook County argued in its response.