Attorney William Kirk, host of Washington Gun Law, says the stakes in NAGR v. Lamont are bigger than one state’s gun restrictions.
In his view, the case is a referendum on whether lower courts can sidestep the Supreme Court’s “common use” rule and still call it Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Kirk frames the dispute plainly. Connecticut bans so-called “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds, and the Supreme Court has been asked to take a hard look.
But the center of his video isn’t the merits brief. It’s two amicus filings that, as he puts it, expose a “mutiny” in the lower courts against the Common Use Test.
Two Amicus Briefs, One Message: Follow the Rule
Kirk highlights two filings he says are “dynamite” because they add new analysis instead of repeating “ditto, me too.”
First is what he calls the “Minnesota brief,” filed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Law Center.
Second is what he calls the “GOA brief,” submitted by Gun Owners of America and allied groups including Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, VCDL entities, and others.
Kirk credits both with attacking the same problem from different angles – how courts are bending or breaking the standards that should decide these cases.
His larger point is procedural and constitutional. When amici expand the lens beyond the petitioners’ brief, the Court gets more than echo; it gets scaffolding.
Rewriting the “Common Use” Rule?
Kirk zeroes in on what he calls the core error below: judicial hostility to the Common Use Test.
Under Heller, McDonald, and reaffirmed in Bruen, arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are protected.
That’s not a suggestion, Kirk says – it’s a rule. As he paraphrases the Minnesota brief, the test operates as a shield that prevents criminalizing the widespread, peaceful possession of common arms.
According to Kirk’s summary, the Second Circuit treated “common use” as neither dispositive nor especially relevant.
Instead, it green-lit bans based on a firearm’s reputation, perceived power, or “features.”
That, Kirk argues, puts forbidden interest-balancing right back into the analysis. Courts then say, “other guns exist for self-defense,” effectively letting judges – not citizens – pick which commonly owned arms are “necessary.”
Kirk stresses the principle he thinks the Minnesota brief drives home: the American people choose how to defend themselves, not politicians and not courts.
To him, discarding “common use” shreds the spine of the doctrine and invites results-oriented jurisprudence.
“Dangerous and Unusual” – What It Really Meant
The GOA brief, as Kirk recounts it, attacks a different but related failure: a century-old phrase being used as a blanket permission slip.
Lower courts, he says, act as though anything labeled “more lethal” can be banned as “dangerous and unusual.”
Kirk argues that flips the language on its head. It’s dangerous and unusual, not unusually dangerous – and all firearms are dangerous in the literal sense.
He credits the GOA brief with going further, back to Blackstone and the Statute of Northampton, which dealt with public carry that terrifies the people, not the mere possession of arms.
On that reading, “dangerous and unusual” is about brandishing and breach of the peace, not the wholesale prohibition of common rifles or standard magazines.
Kirk says courts have misread Heller’s references to history ever since the decision came down.
They’ve used a carry-focused limitation to justify possession bans – an inversion that demands Supreme Court correction.
He also flags what the GOA brief calls the “military features” trap. If a rifle looks or functions like a service arm, some courts treat it as disqualified for civilian self-defense.
But Kirk insists the Founders envisioned parity between the citizen-soldier and the government infantryman, within constitutional limits. He argues that making “military-style” a disqualifier guts the original understanding and turns modern cosmetics into constitutional kryptonite.
A Tiered Constitution – and Why It Matters
Kirk’s broader critique is that the country now lives under a tiered constitutional landscape.
As he recounts from the Minnesota brief, millions of citizens’ choices are dispositive in some circuits – and meaningless in others.
That inconsistency is the real mutiny in Kirk’s telling. If judges can ignore common ownership and lean on “reputation” or “features,” states get a veto over lawful arms via rebranding.
The GOA brief’s answer, as Kirk relays it, is to restore a clean sequence. If the arm is in common use for lawful purposes, that obviates the need for historical analogues—because the threshold protection is already met.
Do history and tradition still matter? Yes, but they matter where Bruen placed them: to justify restrictions on carry and conduct, not to erase possession of common arms by definitional drift.
The Court Needs To Seal the Leaks
Kirk’s analysis lands in a familiar place for Supreme Court watchers: clarity is mercy. When lower courts smell wiggle room, they use it.
On the common use front, I think he’s right that clarity is overdue. The Court can make explicit what Heller implicitly did: market reality is constitutional evidence, and widespread lawful ownership is the decisive fact.
On dangerous and unusual, Kirk’s historical point resonates. If the touchstone was terror to the people – public menacing, not home possession – courts should stop treating the phrase like a universal sledgehammer.
One more fix would help: caution the lower courts against “alternative gun” reasoning – i.e., “You can use some other arm.”
That rationale invites rationing by judicial taste and is irreconcilable with a right the people themselves exercise by choosing common arms.
Finally, the “military features” detour needs a guardrail.
Form should not defeat function when the function is ordinary self-defense and the arm is commonly owned for lawful purposes.
What Happens Next – and Why It’s Bigger Than Connecticut
Kirk reminds viewers this is a petition stage asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
But the amicus briefs he spotlights are strategically designed to tempt the justices with clean issues and clean fixes.
If the Court grants review, expect two questions to take center stage. First, whether common use is dispositive against bans on commonly owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines.
Second, whether dangerous and unusual speaks to public carry abuses rather than possession, and whether lower courts have misused it to uphold categorical bans.
A third, if the Court goes there, could address the creeping “military-style” exclusion that turns aesthetics into constitutional substance.
Kirk’s framing makes a final, practical point. When doctrine fractures, rights become zip-code rights. The Court exists to stop that.
Whether you favor or oppose these laws, everyone benefits from knowing the test courts must apply – without balancing, without euphemism, and without rebranding a ban as a “reasonable regulation.”
On that, William Kirk’s call for clarity is well-aimed and long overdue.
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.
The article Gun Law Attorney Calls Out Courts Over Connecticut’s Assault Weapon Ban ‘Mutiny’ first appeared on Survival World.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
