Key Takeaways
- The Second Amendment Foundation filed a response brief on Nov. 11 urging the U.S. Supreme Court to keep Viramontes v. Cook County alive.
- Cook County wants the case declared moot, which would end it without a ruling on whether its rifle ban is constitutional.
- SAF also has a second case, Grant v. Higgins, challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, which the Court also agreed to hear.
- Arguments in both Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins are scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 2.
- SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb said the organization will be in the courtroom on Dec. 2 arguing against what it calls an unconstitutional ban.
Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
WASHINGTON, DC — The Second Amendment Foundation has answered Cook County at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday, Nov. 11, SAF and its partners filed a response brief arguing that Viramontes v. Cook County should continue, according to SAF’s announcement.
I covered the lead plaintiff’s exit and the county’s push to end the case in He Wanted a Smith and Wesson AR-15. Now He Wants Out of the Case and Cook County Wants the Whole Thing Dismissed. What has changed is that SAF has now filed its reply. Cook County wants the case declared moot. A moot case is one with no live dispute left to decide, and it ends without a ruling on whether the law is constitutional.
“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.”
Kraut pointed to SAF’s second case, Grant v. Higgins, which challenges Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles. The Court also granted cert in Grant, meaning the justices agreed to take it up and decide it. In Kraut’s words, “no matter what the Court decides on Viramontes, we will still have the opportunity to present our case to the Justices on Dec. 2.”
Cook County could still walk away without the justices ruling on its own law. What it cannot do, if SAF’s read holds, is keep the rifle ban question off the calendar. Arguments in both cases are set for Wednesday, Dec. 2.
“We’re disappointed to have to file this brief at this juncture, but we will still be in the courtroom on Dec. 2 arguing against this unconstitutional ban, whether in Viramontes or our second case, Grant,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Tens of millions of peaceable citizens across this country own these rifles, and it is high time for the Supreme Court to strike down these bans across the country.”
More from USA Carry:
The Court has not ruled on Cook County’s request. Any decision on the merits would come after the Dec. 2 arguments.
I will continue tracking Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins as they head into the Dec. 2 arguments.
Legislative data provided by LegiScan (CC BY 4.0, legiscan.com).
