FPC’s merits brief in Viramontes v. Cook County shows why the Court should hold that bans on so-called “assault weapons” are unconstitutional and semiautomatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 28, 2026) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that its legal team has filed its merits brief with the United States Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County, asking the Court to hold that bans on so-called “assault weapons” are unconstitutional and that semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment.
“This is one of the most important Second Amendment cases in American history,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The question is simple: Can the government ban some of the most popular firearms in America? The Constitution says no. Supreme Court precedent says no. And the en banc Third Circuit recently said no in our landmark Cheeseman v. Davenport win. Now we are asking the Supreme Court to say so for the entire country.”
FPC’s brief argues that the result follows directly from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that arms in common use cannot be banned. The same rule necessarily protects modern semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15: they are “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment, tens of millions of Americans possess them for lawful purposes, and they are lawful in the overwhelming majority of states.
Indeed, the Supreme Court itself recently called the AR-15 “the most popular rifle in the country” and recognized that “military style” firearms, including so-called “assault weapons,” “are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers.”
The brief also attacks the lower courts’ attempts to evade Heller. The Seventh Circuit held that Cook County’s ban did not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text, while the Second Circuit concluded that commonly possessed rifles could still be deemed too “dangerous” to protect. FPC argues that both approaches are incompatible with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
“The Second Amendment protects ‘arms’—period,” Combs continued. “Millions of Americans choose semiautomatic firearms for lawful purposes. Authoritarian politicians do not get to veto that choice. These are protected arms, and bans on them are flat-out unconstitutional. It’s time for the Supreme Court to say so.”
The consequences of Viramontes could reach far beyond AR-15 owners.
The Viramontes filing also comes just weeks after FPC’s historic Jensen v. ATF victory against federal National Firearms Act restrictions. With the support of FPC’s Grassroots Army, FPC has spent years building a nationwide strategic litigation campaign against laws that ban protected arms—building wins on wins and using each victory to strengthen the next case. A strong Supreme Court ruling establishing that governments cannot prohibit broad classes of popular arms would provide binding precedent for arms-ban challenges throughout the United States.
“This case is about more than AR-15s,” Combs explained. “FPC is already fighting bans on firearms, magazines, knives, body armor, less-lethal weapons, and other protected arms across the country. Viramontes will set a precedent that courts will have to apply in those cases, too. That can help us eliminate unconstitutional arms bans nationwide and protect peaceable people for generations to come.”
“We have spent years cutting a path toward freedom through hostile legal territory, one hard-fought win at a time. Now we are before the Supreme Court asking it to faithfully enforce the Constitution. And from so-called ‘assault weapon’ and magazine bans to handgun roster bans, Glock bans, self-manufacturing bans, short-barreled weapon bans, body armor bans, and more, we are fighting to eliminate laws that prevent peaceable people from exercising their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms when, where, and how they choose. We are winning—and we intend to keep winning. To our FPC Grassroots Army: Thank you for making this historic opportunity possible. We are honored to Fight Forward with you,” Combs concluded.
The brief and other case documents in Viramontes v. Cook County can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/viramontes.
The Viramontes parties, which include FPC, two of its individual members, and the Second Amendment Foundation, are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, William V. Bergstrom, and J. Joel Alicea of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.
Individuals who want to join the FPC Grassroots Army and help support important lawsuits like this one can visit JoinFPC.org.
Media Contact: [email protected]
About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.
Read the full article here
