On October 3, 2025, the National Association for Gun Rights announced that it has appealed Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its press release, the organization says the Second Circuit’s recent decision upholding those laws flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent.
The filing asks the Justices to take National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont and answer the AR-15 question head-on. This is not a small move; it’s a direct invitation for the Court to step into the center of the national fight over rifle and magazine bans, using Connecticut as the test case.
NAGR’s Core Argument in Plain Terms
NAGR’s theory is simple and sharp. The Supreme Court, through cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, protected arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” The press release says the Second Circuit conceded that AR-15-style rifles are in “common use” yet still upheld Connecticut’s bans. NAGR calls that an “open defiance” of Supreme Court guidance. If the lower courts can call something common and then ban it anyway, the group argues, the “common use” standard becomes meaningless.
What the Petition Wants the Court to Decide
According to the press release, the petition frames the issue this way: If AR-15-style rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, can they be banned? NAGR wants a clear “no.” The group portrays this as a bright-line test that brings Heller and Bruen into the hardware arena. Their stated goal is to shut the door on what they view as lower-court experiments with new tests and labels that dilute the Second Amendment.
William Kirk’s First Take on the Posture
Attorney William Kirk, on his Washington Gun Law channel, cautions viewers that the case arrives at the Supreme Court in an interlocutory posture. This means it got there after the denial of a preliminary injunction, not after a full trial and final judgment. Kirk admits that fact usually lowers the odds of review. But he also says the Second Circuit’s reasoning is so unusual that it might force the Justices’ hand anyway. In his words, “at some point something’s got to pop.”
Why the Second Circuit’s Language Is the Flashpoint
Kirk highlights a key passage: even if certain firearms and magazines are “in common use,” the court suggested they can still be banned if they are “uniquely dangerous.” He argues there is no Supreme Court case that authorizes that carve-out. NAGR echoes that view in its press release, saying the panel’s analysis looks like the kind of interest-balancing Bruen told courts to avoid. If “common use” can be sidestepped by rebranding the technology as too risky, both Kirk and NAGR say we’re right back to policy balancing, not historical analysis.
The Voices Driving the Appeal
NAGR’s president, Dudley Brown, is quoted in the press release calling the Second Circuit’s ruling “one of the most brazen acts of defiance toward Supreme Court precedent.” The group frames the petition as not just a Connecticut fight, but a national signal to courts that “rogue” deviations from Heller and Bruen won’t stand. Kirk, for his part, praises the petition written by attorney Barry Arrington and emphasizes how clearly it tees up the “question presented.” Both the advocacy tone from NAGR and the legal analysis from Kirk align on one point: the Court needs to speak.
Other Cases Hovering in the Background
Kirk notes that the Supreme Court already has other magazine cases in its orbit, including matters tied to Duncan v. Bonta and a magazine case out of Washington State that his channel has been tracking. He also expects an “assault weapon” case to emerge from the Seventh Circuit pipeline. In his view, this patchwork is turning chaotic, and the Justices are likely to choose a vehicle soon to impose some order. The NAGR petition, he says, is making a bold bid to be that vehicle.
The Fascinating Clash Over “Common Use”
Here’s the part that stands out. Both sides speak the language of Supreme Court precedent, but they weigh the same words differently. For NAGR, “common use” is a shield – millions own AR-15s for lawful purposes, so bans must fail. For courts upholding bans, danger and public risk are the trump cards, even after Bruen. Watching this tug-of-war tells us something about constitutional law in motion: a single phrase can carry two worlds of meaning, and the Court’s next sentence may decide which world we live in.
The Stakes NAGR Says Are National
The press release says this case could become “the defining battle” over the constitutionality of AR-15 bans and standard-capacity magazine bans across the country. NAGR also cites a recent remark by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting the Court should, and likely will, address the AR-15 issue “soon, in the next term or two.” That’s a not-so-subtle hint that timing matters. If review is granted, the group expects “sweeping consequences” for gun laws nationwide.
Kirk’s Caution and Challenge
Kirk doesn’t pretend this is a guaranteed grant. He repeats that interlocutory posture is a real barrier. But he also argues the Second Circuit’s approach – treating “uniquely dangerous” as a pathway around “common use” – is exactly the kind of doctrinal drift that draws the Court’s attention. He frames the petition as a necessary push: either the Court reins in the lower courts now, or it should expect more confusion and more emergency appeals later.
Why This Moment Feels Pivotal
From a big-picture view, the system needs clarity. Police, gun owners, prosecutors, and judges all have to operate under rules they can understand. Right now, the tests look fuzzy: when does “common use” control, and when can a state call something “unusually dangerous” and win? That haze makes rights feel unstable. Whether you agree with NAGR or not, a firm Supreme Court answer would settle a lot of arguments and reduce the whiplash between states and circuits.
What NAGR Says the Court Should Do Next
The press release urges the Justices to “slam the door on lower-court defiance” and reaffirm that the Second Amendment “means what it says.” It portrays the Second Circuit’s ruling as an invitation for every jurisdiction to ignore Heller and Bruen by inventing new labels for common arms. The requested remedy is simple: grant review, say bans on commonly owned rifles and standard magazines violate the Constitution, and send a clear message that the framework is not up for creative re-writes.
Where Things Stand Today
As of the filing, NAGR has lodged its petition, the Second Circuit’s decision stands at the preliminary-injunction stage, and Connecticut’s bans remain in effect. Kirk will keep watching the docket from the Washington Gun Law side and promises more analysis as the case moves. NAGR, meanwhile, is rallying supporters with the message that this is the moment to resolve the AR-15 question once and for all. Whether the Court accepts the case now or waits for a different one, both sources agree: the question is coming, and soon.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
