The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have filed new sworn declarations with the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting back against Cook County, Illinois, and its attempt to derail a major Second Amendment challenge just weeks before oral arguments.
In a November 11 response brief, the gun rights organizations argue that Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, remains a live constitutional controversy despite the lead plaintiff’s request to withdraw. Two declarations accompanying the filing establish that the remaining challengers still want to possess AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles prohibited under Cook County’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.
The latest filing comes after Cook County asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on November 5, following lead plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes’ request to withdraw from the litigation. The county argues that his departure leaves the remaining plaintiffs without a sufficient basis to pursue the specific constitutional question the justices agreed to hear.
SAF and FPC disagree, and their response puts new evidence directly before the Court.
New Declarations Undermine Cook County’s Dismissal Argument
The most significant development involves Christopher Khaya, the remaining individual petitioner, and Ed Smolen, a Cook County resident who belongs to both SAF and FPC.
Khaya originally challenged the county’s prohibition because he wanted to possess an IMI Galil, a semiautomatic rifle largely based on the AK-47 platform. Cook County has attempted to distinguish that firearm from the AR-15, arguing that Khaya’s interest in a different rifle platform creates a problem for the case.
But Khaya’s supplemental declaration makes clear that his interest extends beyond the Galil.
“One additional such firearm is a semiautomatic AR-15 platform rifle, which I would acquire and possess in Cook County were it lawful for me to do so,” Khaya declared.
His statement, dated October 21 and included in the November 11 filing, directly addresses the county’s claim that the remaining plaintiff lacks an interest in AR-15 ownership.
Smolen’s declaration provides another example of how Cook County’s ban affects lawful gun owners.
Smolen, a resident of Elmwood Park in Cook County, states that he has owned an AR-15 since 2011 but keeps the rifle outside Illinois. He would possess it at his Cook County residence for lawful purposes, including self-defense, if the county’s ordinance did not prohibit him from doing so.
His November 10 declaration supports SAF and FPC’s argument that their members continue to suffer an injury from the ban, providing an additional basis for the organizations to maintain the lawsuit.
These are not hypothetical objections to gun control. One man wants to acquire a commonly owned rifle, while another already owns one but cannot legally keep it at his Cook County home.
Cook County’s Own Gun Ban Undermines Its Argument
The latest response also highlights a contradiction in Cook County’s effort to distinguish AR-15s from AK-pattern rifles.
The county’s ordinance specifically prohibits numerous semiautomatic firearms, including AR-15s, AK-47s, and Galils. It also restricts firearms based on features such as detachable magazines, folding stocks, and other common rifle characteristics.
Yet Cook County now argues that the Galil sought by Khaya is sufficiently different from an AR-15 to create a problem for the Supreme Court case.
SAF and FPC point out that the county previously grouped these rifles together when defending its restrictions. In earlier litigation, the county even described the Galil as an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
As the petitioners explain in their latest filing:
“The County cannot treat these rifles as interchangeable for purposes of regulation but somehow meaningfully different for purposes of this litigation.”
That contradiction gets to the heart of the county’s legal maneuver. When Cook County wants to ban firearms, it lumps different semiautomatic rifle platforms together under the politically manufactured “assault weapons” label. But when those restrictions face Supreme Court review, the county suddenly wants narrow distinctions between the same firearms to determine whether the lawsuit can continue.
The challengers argue that the Supreme Court’s constitutional review extends beyond one manufacturer’s rifle or a particular operating system.
The question presented to the justices concerns whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic rifles. The petitioners maintain that AK-pattern rifles, including the Galil, plainly fall within that broader category.
They also cite District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, arguing that constitutional protection should be evaluated by firearm class rather than requiring each individual model to establish its own constitutional standing.
The right to keep and bear arms does not depend on whether a rifle uses a direct-gas system or a long-stroke piston, or whether its receiver resembles an AR-15 or an AK.
The petitioners also reject Cook County’s suggestion that Khaya’s stated interest in using his Galil at a shooting range weakens his constitutional claim. Target shooting is a lawful purpose, and the Second Amendment does not require Americans to demonstrate that they will need to fire a particular rifle in self-defense before exercising their right to possess it.
Supreme Court AR-15 Ban Showdown Remains Set for December 2
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on December 2 in Viramontes v. Cook County and the consolidated case, Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, which challenges Connecticut’s restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
The two cases could provide the justices an opportunity to address whether governments can prohibit firearms owned by millions of peaceable Americans for lawful purposes.
In its response, SAF asks the Court to reject Cook County’s request to dismiss Viramontes as moot or as improvidently granted.
“There’s every reason this case can and should continue,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We fully expect the Court to agree with our position on Viramontes, but regardless of the Court’s decision, this issue will be heard. SAF has a second case – Grant v. Higgins – that was also granted cert by the Supreme Court so no matter what the Court decides on Viramontes, we will still have the opportunity to present our case to the Justices on Dec. 2.”
Even Cook County acknowledges that dismissing its own case would not prevent the Supreme Court from addressing the same constitutional question through Grant.
Still, allowing Cook County to escape review of its ordinance after years of litigation would leave its restrictions unresolved in this proceeding, despite the remaining challengers’ continued interest in exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the county’s dismissal request. Meanwhile, the justices have granted the U.S. Solicitor General permission to participate in the December 2 oral arguments, adding the federal government to a constitutional fight that could have nationwide consequences.
For gun owners, the fundamental issue remains unchanged. AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles are lawful arms possessed by millions of Americans. Government officials do not acquire the authority to prohibit them simply by assigning them an inflammatory label or objecting to their features.
After five years of litigation, SAF and its partners are demanding a decision on the constitutional merits rather than allowing Cook County to sidestep scrutiny through a last-minute procedural maneuver.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not provide an exception for rifles that politicians dislike.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
