Supreme Court Keeps Assault Weapons Ban Arguments on Track Despite Mootness Bid

The Supreme Court is moving ahead with oral arguments on "assault weapons" bans in Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut on December 2, even as Cook County tries to get its case declared moot after the lead plaintiff asked to withdraw.

Snapshot

The justices granted Solicitor General D. John Sauer's request for the Trump administration to take part in the December 2 oral arguments over semi-automatic rifle bans. Separately, Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke is arguing the Cook County case is moot because lead plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes asked to be dismissed without explanation, but Bearing Arms contends the Connecticut case and other plaintiffs keep the core Second Amendment question alive regardless.

Key points

• DOJ gets a seat at the table: The Court granted the Trump administration's motion to participate in oral arguments, after the DOJ had already filed a brief opposing the bans.
• Mootness fight unresolved: The Court has not yet ruled on Viramontes's withdrawal request or Burke's mootness argument, and could address it via a separate order at any time.
• Connecticut case stands either way: Even if Cook County's suit is dismissed, Bearing Arms notes Connecticut's ban remains squarely before the justices on December 2.
• Everytown wants answers: Everytown Law's Janet Carter called the withdrawal "unprecedented" and said the public deserves an explanation, though Viramontes declined to comment.

Quick take

Bearing Arms argues the procedural maneuvering changes little: with other plaintiffs and a consolidated Connecticut case in play, the Court has no real path to avoid ruling on whether AR-15-style rifles are protected under the Second Amendment. For owners of the most popular rifle in the country, the December 2 arguments remain the main event to watch.

Read the full story: bearingarms.com