Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Gun-Control Group Cites Obscure Stat To Justify Semi-Auto Bans

Tony Webster/Wikimedia Commons

A group supporting bans on modern semiautomatic firearms cited a little-known statistic Tuesday they claim provides an objective justification for the measures.

The Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a Second Amendment challenge to the Illinois locality’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, scheduling oral arguments for Dec. 2. In a brief, Citizen Response to Increased Muzzle Energy (CRIME), a group founded by investor Lee Kranefuss, the group not only claimed that a stat known as Muzzle Energy per Minute proved the rifles were more powerful, but also cited the Fourth Amendment to justify the gun bans.

“MEpM provides an objective measure of how much lethal energy one person can release in 60 seconds by firearm,” the brief, filed by attorney Roger Ian Teich, claimed. “The Table compiles the MEpM of a range of archetypal firearms and cartridges showing the derivations for each from publicly-sourced information. Handguns, Semiautomatic handguns, Bolt-Action rifles, various Semiautomatic rifles, and AR-15 platform rifles are arrayed in ascending rows by MEpM, with columns that show the firearm and cartridge, predicate calculations, and cited source.”

“Bottom line: the five weapons with the most lethality — by far — are all archetypal semiautomatic rifles prohibited under the Connecticut and Cook County statutes,” the brief continued, including a link to the table.

In briefs filed Oct. 21, Connecticut and Cook County cited prohibitions on obscure weapons like launcegays and slungshots while arguing the justices should allow their bans on so-called “assault weapons” to remain legal. The brief from CRIME also cited Fourth Amendment cases to justify the bans.

“When police used wireless cell-phone site location data cataloging a suspect’s movements in toto to confirm his proximity to the sites of four robberies, the Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that such a search implicated Fourth Amendment privacy interests and required a warrant,” the brief claimed, arguing that rifles like the AR-15 and Springfield M1A constituted a “dramatic technological change” that warranted regulation.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in the case in the summer of 2027.