Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Attorney General William Tong filed Connecticut’s brief with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in Grant v. Higgins, defending the state’s post-Sandy Hook ban on AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.
Tong stated that the ban is “lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported,” arguing that AR-15s are “unusually dangerous and excessively lethal” and that the law fits the nation’s historical tradition of regulating such weapons under the Bruen standard. The brief contends that legislatures have long restricted weapons capable of causing “excessive harm,” cites examples from 14th-century England onward, and rejects the idea that firearms in “common use” cannot be banned. It claims AR-15s enable rapid, long-distance damage due to their rate of fire, low recoil, and modularity, and notes their use in mass shootings relative to self-defense incidents. Oral arguments are set for December 2 alongside the related Viramontes v. Cook County case from Illinois; a ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s term.
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), a lead plaintiff along with the Second Amendment Foundation and individual gun owners, has pushed back sharply. In a statement, CCDL noted that the state’s position disregards decades of precedent recognizing the Second Amendment’s protection of commonly owned arms for lawful purposes. The group highlighted the government’s reliance on colonial-era British law to justify the modern ban, along with a striking inconsistency: officials assert that the AR-15 has “tremendous stopping power” yet claim it is not lethal enough to be used ethically for deer hunting in Connecticut.
Petitioners have long argued that the AR-15 platform is the most popular rifle in the country, owned by millions of Americans and used overwhelmingly for lawful purposes including self-defense, sport, and hunting where permitted. Lower courts, including the Second Circuit in August 2025, upheld the ban by treating the right as “not unlimited” and the restricted firearms as “uniquely designed to create mayhem,” while finding that other options remain available. CCDL and its co-plaintiffs contend this approach conflicts with Heller and Bruen’s focus on common use and historical analogues that actually burdened the right of law-abiding citizens.
The case reaches the high court after years of litigation over Connecticut’s 2013 expansion of its 1993 “assault weapons” law, which bans specified models by name and any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine plus one of several features such as a pistol grip or telescoping stock. CCDL has urged supporters to help fund the final stage of the fight ahead of the December arguments.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
