Category: All About Guns

Every now and then, a Supreme Court filing comes along that makes you stop, reread the argument and wonder if you understood it correctly the first time.

This is one of those filings.

Connecticut attorney David A. Robinson has submitted an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. His central argument is not simply that certain rifles can be regulated. He wants the Court to declare part of the Second Amendment “extinct.”

Yes, that is the word used in the brief.

The AR-15 Case Before the Court

The filing comes in the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The cases challenge bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.

The question before the Supreme Court is straightforward: Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms?

The Court granted review on June 30, consolidated the two cases and scheduled oral arguments for December 2, 2026.

Robinson’s brief supports the governments defending their bans. However, an important distinction needs to be made. This is not a ruling, a government filing or the official brief from either respondent. Robinson wrote and funded it himself. As of October 27, the Supreme Court docket listed it as “submitted.”

If the Amendment Process Fails, Ask the Court?

Robinson says he previously tried to build support for a proposed 28th Amendment that would rewrite the constitutional protection for arms. He self-published a short book, purchased Amazon and Facebook ads and contacted elected officials.

The campaign went nowhere.

That failure becomes part of his argument to the Court. Robinson reasons that because Americans could not agree on new constitutional language, the justices should step in and declare which portions of the existing Second Amendment remain alive.

That is where the argument starts running backward.

The Constitution already provides a process for changing its language through Article V. If an effort to amend the Constitution fails, the original language remains in effect. Failure to persuade the public does not normally create permission for judges to rewrite the provision themselves.

Robinson nevertheless asks the Court to declare the militia clause “extinct.” He then argues that the protection for keeping and bearing arms should survive only to the extent judges consider a weapon necessary for personal defense or hunting.

That turns an explicit constitutional limit on government into a government-approved list of permitted purposes.

The Brief Takes Some Wild Turns

Robinson compares the Second Amendment’s militia language to Major League Baseball’s pre-1947 exclusion of Black players. He claims both concepts may have made sense to people in their respective eras but are now outdated.

He also compares firearm-capacity limits to speed limits on cars.

That analogy skips over a fairly important detail. Driving at a particular speed is not an enumerated constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms is.

The filing goes further by suggesting that AR-15 owners who cite protection against tyranny must believe they have the right to shoot police officers attempting to enforce a firearm ban. Robinson describes gun owners as combining a “1791 mentality” with a modern AR-15.

That is a massive leap from opposing government overreach to advocating violence against individual officers. It substitutes an extreme hypothetical for the actual question before the Court: whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles fall within the protection of the Second Amendment.

The brief concludes with an imaginary conversation between a 9-year-old student and her teacher during an active-shooter drill. Robinson says the hypothetical conversation “proves” semiautomatic rifles are not constitutionally protected.

It may illustrate his policy concerns, but an invented conversation is not historical evidence or constitutional analysis.

The Argument Collides With Heller

The biggest problem is that Robinson’s “extinct militia” theory runs directly into District of Columbia v. Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that is not dependent on service in a militia. The Court also explained that the amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but “does not limit or expand the scope” of its operative guarantee.

Robinson quotes Heller’s statement that courts cannot pronounce the Second Amendment extinct, but then asks the Court to do essentially that.

His claim that the militia no longer exists is also hard to square with current law. Federal law still recognizes both an organized militia and an unorganized militia. Whether that statute resolves the AR-15 question is another matter, but it certainly complicates the claim that the militia has simply vanished.

Robinson also argues that because Garland v. Cargill did not decide whether bump stocks receive Second Amendment protection, semiautomatic rifles may be banned. But Cargill addressed whether a bump-stock-equipped rifle qualified as a machine gun under federal statutory language. The Court’s decision not to reach a separate constitutional question did not answer it against gun owners.

Why This Brief Is Getting Attention

The filing probably will not become the central argument in these cases. It is one independently submitted amicus brief among dozens, and it does not speak for Cook County, Connecticut or the Supreme Court.

Still, it puts a remarkably blunt version of the anti-AR argument into the official record.

The Constitution is too old. The militia is obsolete. Modern rifles are too effective. The amendment process failed. Therefore, judges should declare part of the Second Amendment dead and let governments decide which arms citizens really need.

For gun owners, that sequence is exactly why constitutional protections exist in the first place.

What do you think? Is this brief simply an outlier, or does it say the quiet part out loud about the broader effort to remove AR-15s from Second Amendment protection?

===========================================  In my humble opinion. I kind of doubt that this court would do something so opposed to their previous holding on the 2nd Ad. . But then the crazier things than this have happened before. Grumpy