(The Center Square) – New amicus briefs are in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case challenging gun and magazine bans in Illinois and Connecticut.
The consolidated case Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois and Grant v. Connecticut is set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Dec. 2. The question is whether state and local governments can ban semi-automatic firearms that gun rights proponents say are in common use for lawful purposes.
On Wednesday, 40 amicus briefs were filed to the high court. Among them were a group of Democratic U.S. senators and other members of Congress.
“A categorical rule foreclosing prohibitions on the semiautomatic rifles at issue, as Petitioners urge, would remove that regulatory option from Congress, the States, and local governments, even as weapons, evidence, and experience continue to change,” the group of senators said in announcing their amicus brief. “The Constitution protects individual rights while entrusting elected lawmakers with the policy judgments that remain within constitutional bounds.”
Leading the amicus brief for the Democratic members of congress were U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and Adam Schiff, D-California.
“Amici therefore urge the Court to reject the categorical prohibition Petitioners seek and affirm the judgments below, preserving the authority of elected lawmakers to determine whether and how to regulate assault weapons consistent with the Second Amendment,” they said.
Other amicus briefs separately filed Wednesday include those from gun control groups Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety and Teachers Unify to End Gun Violence.
Eighteen states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey submitted a joint amicus brief. That brief argues regulating “assault weapons” falls within historical tradition. Chicago and 23 other cities also submitted briefs supporting gun bans.
A group of religious organizations, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Union for Reform Judaism and others, also filed a joint brief that argued the Second Amendment “does not protect unusually dangerous weapons, including AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles.”
Several law enforcement groups also filed separate briefs, including the New York City Police Department.
“Legalizing assault weapons would create significant operational challenges for the NYPD and other law-enforcement agencies charged with protecting public safety in urban areas,” attorneys wrote in the brief.
On Sept. 4, 44 amicus briefs were filed, mostly from various state-based gun rights groups and other similar organizations. Groups of Republican U.S. senators and other members of Congress also filed briefs supporting overturning such gun bans. States, like Tennessee, also filed in support of plaintiffs. The separate amicus briefs filed last month generally argue the Second Amendment protects access to commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.
The U.S. Department of Justice also filed a brief in support of petitioners on Sept. 4.
“History and precedent foreclose bans on arms that are in common use for lawful purposes,” the DOJ argued.
On Aug. 31, the National Sheriffs’ Association and Western States Sheriffs’ Association filed a brief in support of plaintiffs.
“Banning weapons in common use today which is not dangerous or unusual violates the Second Amendment,” the sheriffs group said. “Banning the most popular self-defense weapon causes problems for law enforcement.”
After the Dec. 2 hearing in the case, a ruling isn’t expected until next summer.
