Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
In a significant development for gun rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s post-Sandy Hook assault weapon ban. The Court consolidated the case with the parallel Illinois case Viramontes v. Cook County.
The justices will now directly address whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of law-abiding Americans to possess AR-15 platform rifles and other commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.
This is the breakthrough Second Amendment advocates have long awaited. Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban — and similar laws nationwide — represent a direct challenge to the core right to keep and bear arms “in common use” for lawful purposes.
Grant v. Higgins (originally filed as Grant v. Rovella/Lamont) is brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), and individual plaintiffs including Eddie Grant Jr. It challenges Connecticut’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, which prohibits firearms by specific name and by a list of arbitrary “features” such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors.
The lower courts, including the Second Circuit, upheld the ban. Petitioners argue this ruling defies Supreme Court precedent by treating the most popular rifle in America — the AR-15 platform — as somehow outside constitutional protection. The question presented is clear: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.
Millions of law-abiding Americans own AR-15-style rifles. These are not exotic “weapons of war” reserved for the military; they are modern, reliable, lightweight semiautomatic firearms used for self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, and recreational purposes. As SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut noted, these rifles “potentially outnumber Ford F-150 trucks in America,” easily satisfying the Heller common-use test.
The “assault weapon” label is largely political rhetoric rather than a meaningful functional distinction. The banned features are mostly cosmetic or ergonomic; they do not transform a semiautomatic rifle into something uniquely dangerous. If such features can justify banning an entire class of commonly owned arms, the government would have virtually unlimited power to disarm the people — a result at odds with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition.
Connecticut’s ban, like others, was sold on fear and misinformation rather than evidence. The laws do nothing to stop criminals, who obtain firearms illegally and ignore restrictions. They only disarm responsible citizens and create a false sense of security. The Supreme Court in Bruen made clear that gun regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation — not modern policy preferences dressed up as public safety.
A favorable ruling could have sweeping effects. It could invalidate or undermine assault weapons bans in multiple states and set a strong precedent protecting modern semiautomatic firearms. This isn’t about “assault weapons” — it’s about whether the Second Amendment means what it says: the individual right to possess arms commonly used for lawful purposes shall not be infringed.
SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb put it plainly: "Lawmakers have long relied on fearmongering to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment, especially when it comes to common, semi-automatic rifles. These arms are no different than other semiautomatic firearms millions of Americans own for self-defense."
Of course Attorney General William Tong promised a fight.
“Connecticut’s assault weapon ban is lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported. The gun lobby has flooded the courts in states across the country to get an assault weapons case up to this Supreme Court. We are prepared for this fight, and we are going to go in with everything we’ve got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families,” said Tong.
Grant v. Higgins will now move to briefing and oral arguments in the 2026-2027 term. A decision could have significant implications, potentially invalidating or limiting assault weapons bans in multiple states and clarifying the scope of Second Amendment protection for modern semiautomatic firearms.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
