By Dave Workman
The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of its challenge to the ban of so-called “assault weapons” in Connecticut in a case known as Grant v. Rovella, which was filed Sept. 29, 2022 as Grant v. Lamont.
Joining SAF in this case are the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr., for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Doug Dubitsky, North Windham, Conn., Cameron L. Atkinson and Audrey J. Lynn at Atkinson Law in Harwinton, Conn., David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, William V. Bergstrom and Matthew R. Rittman at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., and Craig C. Fishbein at the Fishbein Law Form in Wallingford, Conn.
The petition for certiorari asks this question: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.” If the high court accepts this case, the outcome could cause an earthquake in gun control across the country.
The Supreme Court has already accepted two Second Amendment cases this year, so odds might be against a third case, although earlier this year, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated the court would be looking at semi-auto bans in the near future.
“This case has far-reaching implications for the entire country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb in a prepared statement announcing the filing. “Residents of Connecticut and the other 10 states that have similar laws face felony prosecution for owning any number of firearms that are in common use around the country. The Constitution protects all arms in common use by citizens for lawful purposes, even those that activist lawmakers have lumped into artificially conjured definitions based on features that they don’t even understand.”
In their 33-page petition, SAF attorneys note, “Last term, this Court denied certiorari in Snope v. Brown, which involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban on the AR-15 platform rifle. In a statement respecting the denial, Justice Kavanaugh observed that there is a ‘strong argument that AR-15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment.’”
Later, the petition reminds the court, “The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country, and among the most popular firearms of any type. This Court and its Justices have recognized as much.”
The fight over modern semiautomatic rifles dates back several years, and has been marked by demonization of the firearms as “weapons of war”—which Second Amendment advocates contend is a deliberate mischaracterization—and by tragic incidents around the country involving such firearms. Millions of these guns are currently in private ownership, for all kinds of legitimate uses including competition, predator hunting and control, varmint hunting, home protection, recreational shooting and emergency survival. There have been several recorded incidents in which modern semi-auto rifles have been used in self-defense.
Referring to Justice Kavanaugh’s earlier prediction, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut noted, “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and it’s time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.”
Back in 2022 when the case was initially filed, Gottlieb said there is no historical foundation for such a ban, and the original complaint detailed the historical development of firearms including repeating rifles developed and manufactured in Connecticut and elsewhere. The lawsuit also mentioned incidents in which modern semiautomatic rifles were used by private citizens to stop violent crimes.
There is no telling when the justices may decide whether to take this case for review.
