Attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, says another major Second Amendment case is now knocking on the Supreme Court’s door.
In his recent video, Kirk explains that the case is Grant v. Rovella, a fresh challenge to Connecticut’s “assault weapon” and high-capacity magazine ban.
Kirk tells viewers this case is a companion to another petition already at the Court, NAGR v. Lamont, and both are backed by the Second Amendment Foundation. He points out that the petition in Grant is long, detailed, and tightly written, but he zooms in on one key question.
If the Second Circuit’s reasoning is right, Kirk asks, what actually stops a government from banning every kind of firearm except maybe a narrow sliver the courts happen to like?
That’s the heart of his warning.
Kirk: Court “Blessed A Ban On The Most Popular Rifle In America”
Kirk says the petition in Grant v. Rovella raises two main points.
First, he notes the petition argues that the Second Circuit “blesses a ban on the most popular rifle in America” by upholding Connecticut’s law against AR-15-style rifles and standard magazines.
Second, he says the petition warns that under the Second Circuit’s logic, the Second Amendment allows “anything short of a complete ban on all firearms.” In other words, as long as the government leaves something behind, courts will call it constitutional.
Kirk reminds viewers that when the Second Circuit had to confront the usual Supreme Court standard – whether a firearm is “dangerous and unusual” – the judges didn’t follow the existing language.
Instead, he says, they mashed the words together into a new label: “unusually dangerous.”
Kirk calls that phrase a judicial invention. He argues it lets the court quietly re-insert “interest-balancing” into the analysis – the very kind of balancing that the Supreme Court in Bruen said judges are not allowed to do anymore.
From his perspective, the court basically gave itself permission to weigh how dangerous guns are and how much safety politicians say they want, then pick winners and losers.
Turning Common Rifles Into Unprotected “Dangerous” Weapons
Kirk reads from the petition to show how big the stakes are.
He highlights the argument that a handful of “outlier states” have passed bans like Connecticut’s. The petition says the Second Circuit’s decision effectively signals that all of these bans are constitutional, as long as state lawmakers simply declare that AR-style rifles are too dangerous and that “less effective firearms are good enough” for citizens.
That logic, Kirk explains, takes “a firearm possessed for lawful purposes by tens of millions of Americans” and treats it as if it has no constitutional protection at all.
The whole point of removing interest-balancing in cases like Heller and Bruen, Kirk reminds viewers, was to keep legislatures and courts from deciding which guns ordinary people “need” for self-defense. The common use test was designed to flip that: Americans show what they need by what they actually own and use.
But under the Second Circuit’s approach, Kirk says, that principle gets turned upside down.
He reads another line from the petition: because Connecticut’s law bans “the most popular rifle in the country,” it suggests that, if the decision below is correct, no firearm in America is protected except the very specific handguns considered in Heller.
And even those, he warns, could be at risk if courts keep stretching the “unusually dangerous” label.
What Does “Unusually Dangerous” Even Mean?
Kirk spends time on the phrase “unusually dangerous” because he says it has no real legal foundation.
He points out there is no established Second Amendment test for when a firearm crosses that line. There’s no consistent case law, no clear definition, and no objective standard.
That vacuum, he argues, is exactly where politics creeps back in.
If judges can just declare a gun “unusually dangerous” without a strict rule, then whichever court is most hostile to firearms gets to decide which guns vanish from protection. Kirk warns this lets “some politically motivated judge” put interest-balancing right back into the Second Amendment, even though the Supreme Court supposedly removed it.
He then walks through how Connecticut defends its law. The state says, in effect, we’re not banning everything. People can still buy and own other semi-automatic firearms that lawmakers have labeled “less dangerous.”
Kirk quotes the petition’s response: the Second Circuit never explains why, under its own logic, Connecticut can’t just ban those other semi-automatics later, too.
The petition specifically notes that many semi-automatic hunting rifles are “not meaningfully different” from AR-15s in functionality. If AR-15s are too dangerous, Kirk asks, why can’t politicians simply decide that similar hunting rifles are too dangerous next?
The petition warns, and Kirk agrees, that under this reasoning, “the only limit” on the state’s power to ban weapons is whatever its legislature decides is acceptable.
That, he says, is the exact opposite of what the Second Amendment is supposed to be.
Who Really Does The “Interest Balancing” – Courts Or The People?
Kirk points to what he calls one of the most important lines in the petition.
The petition argues that the Second Amendment itself “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people.” In plain language, that means the balancing act between safety and liberty already happened when Americans wrote and ratified the amendment.
Because of that, Kirk says, courts and legislatures don’t get to redo the balancing every time they don’t like a certain gun. The text, history, and tradition of the right are already set.
From his point of view, the Second Circuit’s decision throws that idea out. By approving bans on common rifles based on how dangerous lawmakers say they are, the court is handing the power of interest-balancing back to politicians and judges.
Kirk then raises a chilling hypothetical. He notes that in Heller, the city tried to justify banning handguns by talking about how dangerous they were. The Supreme Court rejected that.
But under the Second Circuit’s new “unusually dangerous” frame, he says, a court could simply declare handguns too dangerous and uphold the ban.
The petition itself makes that point: if we’re stuck using the Second Circuit’s reasoning, the handgun ban struck down in Heller could be recast as a mere “legislative judgment” that handguns are too effective and thus too dangerous to allow.
In that world, almost nothing is safe.
From “Most Popular Rifle” To “No Guns At All”?
Kirk’s core argument is that if you accept the Second Circuit’s approach in Grant v. Rovella, you have accepted a roadmap the government can use to ban nearly everything.
Start with AR-15s and standard magazines, the most common rifle platform in the country. Call them unusually dangerous and unnecessary.
Then move to other semi-automatic rifles, even those used for hunting. Kirk notes the petition’s warning that these guns are functionally similar and could be swept in next.
From there, there is no logical stopping point. Shotguns, lever-actions, bolt-actions – any of them could be labeled “too dangerous” or “too effective” compared to some supposedly safer alternative.
And because the Second Circuit says it’s enough for Connecticut to leave something behind – some pistol, some revolver, some lesser tool – the government could always argue, “You still have a way to defend yourself, so your rights aren’t really violated.”
Kirk’s concern is that once judges accept that framing, the Second Amendment stops being a real limit and becomes a suggestion.
This is where his commentary hits hardest. When a court upholds a ban on the most popular rifle in America and invents a new danger label to do it, he says, the danger isn’t just about AR-15s. It’s about the legal theory that can be applied to any arm the government doesn’t like.
Why This Petition Matters Right Now
Kirk reminds viewers that Grant v. Rovella and NAGR v. Lamont are both at an early stage.
These are interlocutory appeals, meaning the plaintiffs lost their motions for preliminary injunctions and are challenging that denial before a final trial. Kirk says the Second Circuit’s opinion was so “atrocious” that both sets of plaintiffs decided to go straight to the Supreme Court with petitions for review.
As of his video, Kirk notes there’s no conference date set yet and he’s not even sure a briefing schedule has been ordered for Connecticut’s response. But he tells his audience he will keep watching the docket and keep people updated.
He ends with his standard reminder that being a lawful and responsible gun owner means knowing “what the law is in every situation” and how it applies to you.
From a broader view, his video is more than just a case update. It’s a warning that obscure legal phrases and appellate decisions can quietly reshape the Second Amendment without a single new statute.
The biggest takeaway from William Kirk’s analysis is simple, but unsettling.
If judges can bless bans on the most common rifles in America by calling them “unusually dangerous,” and if courts say your rights are intact as long as some lesser weapons remain, then the only real limit on gun bans becomes the mood of the legislature.
And if that logic stands, he argues, the government wouldn’t need to stop at AR-15s. It would have the legal tools to come for everything else too.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
