The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states may ban AR-15-style rifles. The outcome will shape the Second Amendment landscape nationwide, and Missouri gun owners have good reason to follow it closely, even though Missouri has no such ban of its own.
Where things stand: On the last day of its most recent term, the Court granted review in two consolidated cases challenging state and local bans on semiautomatic rifles. Oral argument is expected in the fall of 2026, with a decision likely before the term ends in 2027. Nothing has changed in the law yet. This post explains what the Court agreed to decide and what each side argues.
For the first time since its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court is preparing to address one of the most contested questions in modern firearms law: whether the Second Amendment protects the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles that some jurisdictions classify as “assault weapons.” The Court consolidated two cases for argument, Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), out of Illinois, and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), out of Connecticut.
What the Court agreed to decide
Both cases ask a version of the same question: whether laws prohibiting the possession of common semiautomatic rifles are consistent with the Second Amendment. In Viramontes, the challengers are contesting a Cook County, Illinois ordinance that bans semiautomatic rifles with certain features, such as pistol grips, along with large-capacity magazines. In Grant, the challengers are contesting Connecticut’s assault-weapons ban, which was expanded after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The lower federal appeals courts, the Seventh Circuit in Viramontes and the Second Circuit in Grant, upheld the restrictions. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear both cases together signals that it intends to give a fuller answer to a question it has repeatedly declined to take up in recent years.
The two laws at issue
Cook County, Illinois: a local ordinance banning semiautomatic rifles with specified features and large-capacity magazines.
Connecticut: a statewide “assault weapons” ban originally enacted in 1993 and significantly expanded after 2012.
The two legal tests at the center of the case
What makes this case genuinely difficult is that both sides rely on the Supreme Court’s own recent precedent. The dispute turns on how two tests fit together.
The “common use” standard from Heller
The challengers rely primarily on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which held that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes and does not extend to weapons that are “dangerous and unusual.” Their central argument is factual as much as legal: the AR-15 is among the most widely owned rifles in the United States, with tens of millions in circulation, and a firearm owned by millions of law-abiding citizens cannot fairly be called “unusual.” On that reading, a ban on a commonly owned rifle is difficult to square with Heller.
The “history and tradition” standard from Bruen
The governments defending the bans rely on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which instructs courts to ask whether a modern firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They argue that the country has a long tradition of restricting especially dangerous weapons as technology has changed, and that legislatures may draw a line at rifles they consider particularly hazardous. On this view, prevalence alone does not immunize a category of weapon from regulation.
The heart of the case is that the Court’s own framework can be read to point in two directions at once, which is precisely why the Justices agreed to resolve it.
Neither argument is frivolous, and reasonable jurists have disagreed. The lower courts that upheld these bans concluded the history-and-tradition inquiry allowed them. Judges in other cases have read Heller‘s common-use language to cut the other way. The Supreme Court took these cases in part to clarify how the “common use” test and the “history and tradition” test interact when they appear to conflict.
By the numbers
According to gun-policy trackers, roughly ten states and the District of Columbia currently restrict the rifles at issue, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. A ruling in either direction would have its most direct effect in those jurisdictions.
Why Missouri gun owners should pay attention
Missouri is not among the states with an “assault weapons” ban, and it recognizes permitless, or “constitutional,” carry under Chapter 571 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. A Missourian’s ability to own an AR-15 today does not depend on the outcome of these cases. So why follow them closely?
The answer is that the Supreme Court’s decision will set the national constitutional baseline. If the Court holds that these rifles are protected, that ruling would constrain what any state, including a future Missouri legislature, could do, and would clarify the limits on federal regulation as well. If the Court holds that such bans are permissible, states that have so far declined to enact them would have a clearer green light. Either way, Missourians who travel with firearms, who own or build AR-15-pattern rifles, or who plan to pass firearms to heirs have a direct interest in knowing where the constitutional line is drawn.
What a decision can and cannot do
It is worth setting realistic expectations. These cases concern state and local bans on possession of certain rifles. They are not, on their face, a referendum on the National Firearms Act, on background checks, or on carry permits. A decision could be narrow, resolving only whether these particular laws survive, or broad, announcing a general rule for how courts should evaluate weapons bans. The Court could also send the cases back to the lower courts for further work under a clarified standard. Until the opinion issues, likely in 2027, the existing bans remain in effect in the states that have them, and Missouri law is unchanged.
The estate-planning footnote most owners overlook
Regardless of how the Court rules, firearms remain a category of property that deserves deliberate planning. Certain items regulated under the National Firearms Act, such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles, carry transfer rules that ordinary heirs may not understand, and an unplanned transfer at death can create real legal exposure for a family. A properly drafted gun trust or a firearms-aware estate plan addresses lawful possession, transfer, and inheritance in a way a standard will often does not. That planning is worthwhile whether the Supreme Court expands or narrows the right at issue in these cases.
Helpful resources
• SCOTUSblog, “The Supreme Court and the right to bear arms: an explainer”
• Congressional Research Service, “The Second Amendment at the Supreme Court”
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Related on this site: A Texas Court Struck Down NFA Registration for Suppressors and Short-Barreled Rifles. Here Is What It Does, and Does Not, Mean. · Firearms Offenses · Civil Rights & §1983
Questions about firearms and your estate plan?
Haake Law Group helps Missouri families and firearms owners plan for lawful ownership, transfer, and inheritance. Schedule a free consultation to talk through your situation.
This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Firearms laws and constitutional interpretation change over time, and violations can carry serious criminal penalties. Case status and holdings can change as litigation proceeds; verify current law with the relevant court or agency. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.