Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Illinois County Tries To Weasel Out Of Supreme Court Second Amendment Semi-Auto Showdown

Yuchien.ning/Wikimedia Commons

Cook County, Illinois, asked the Supreme Court Thursday to drop a Second Amendment case involving the area’s semiautomatic gun ban after one plaintiff announced he was withdrawing.

Cutberto Viramontes filed paperwork seeking to be dropped from Viramontes v. Cook County, which the justices agreed to hear on June 30. In a motion filed Thursday, attorneys for Cook County, which includes Chicago, asked the Supreme Court to drop the case, claiming that the withdrawal by Viramontes, who sought to purchase an AR-15, made it “moot.”

“Prior to his motion for dismissal from the case, Cutberto Viramontes had standing to press this appeal. In district court, Viramontes maintained that he was a Cook County resident who sought ‘to own a Smith and Wesson Military & Police AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle,’” Cook County claimed. “Viramontes’ desire to own that AR-15-style weapon gave him a concrete stake in the question presented: ‘Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.’”

“If the Court grants Viramontes’ motion for dismissal, he will no longer be a petitioner before the Court,” Cook County added. “Unlike Viramontes, petitioner Christopher Khaya—the other individual petitioner—does not appear to have standing to litigate the question presented in this Court. Khaya has not stated that he wishes to own an AR-15. Instead, he ‘wants an IMI [Industrial Military Industries] Galil semiautomatic rifle.’”

The Galil assault rifle was originally entered in a competition for a new service weapon for the Israeli Defense Forces and was based off the Finnish M60 rifle, a modified Kalashnikov chambered in 5.56mm NATO, according to WeaponsFactory.com. It comes with standard 25, 35 or 50-round magazines and has an effective range of 600 yards.

In briefs filed on Oct. 21, both Connecticut, the other party in the case, 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 in force. Dozens of briefs defending the bans on so-called “assault weapons” came from religious organizations, anti-Second Amendment groups, states controlled by Democrats, historians, ballistics experts and survivors of mass shootings, some of which accused firearms companies of boosting the popularity of AR-15s through various forms of “unlawful behavior” in their advertising.

When the justices agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, they consolidated the case with Grant v. Higgins, a similar case challenging Connecticut’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, including the AR-15. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec. 2 and is expected to issue its decision on the case in summer 2027.