Staff Reports
The battle over AR‑15‑style rifles landed a new round at the U.S. Supreme Court this week when Connecticut (led by Attorney General William Tong) and Cook County (represented by Eileen O’Neill Burke) filed merits briefs arguing that modern semiautomatic rifles can be regulated because history shows legislatures long ago banned “unusually dangerous” weapons. Their briefs point to medieval launcegays and 19th‑century slungshots as precedents. If you thought legal briefs would stick to sober analysis, welcome to the medieval armory.
What the briefs actually say
In simple terms, Connecticut and Cook County tell the Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins that AR‑15‑style rifles aren’t just another tool for lawful self‑defense — they’re the modern equivalent of weapons once singled out for outright bans. The briefs trot out launcegays (a kind of light lance), slungshots (a lead weight on a cord), Bowie knives and even crossbows as historical examples of arms legislatures chose to forbid because of “exceptional lethality.” The respondents argue that those bans show a tradition of excluding particularly dangerous arms from Second Amendment protection, and they want the Court to apply that line of reasoning to today’s “assault weapons” bans.
Why the historical argument is a stretch
Here’s the blunt truth: citing medieval lances and sailor’s slungshots to justify banning weapons owned by millions of Americans is a bit of a reach. The Supreme Court’s current test asks for close historical analogues — not a museum tour. Legal scholars and Second Amendment advocates say the respondents’ analogies are weak and predictable. You can’t square a medieval battlefield tool with a semiautomatic rifle any more than you can square a horse with a car. If courts accept this kind of loose history, legislatures could justify banning nearly anything by pointing at some dusty statute from 500 years ago.
What’s really on the line
This case will decide whether “common use” protection for firearms survives, or whether governments get a green light to carve out a broad category of “unusually dangerous” weapons. If the Court buys the respondents’ framing, state and local leaders would have far more power to ban modern arms they dislike. If the challengers win, established bans in Connecticut, Illinois and elsewhere could be struck down. This isn’t abstract doctrine — it’s about whether law‑abiding Americans keep the tools they use for hunting, sport and self‑defense, or whether those tools can be swept away by an elastic test of historical danger.
The Supreme Court will hear argument in early December and a decision will follow. Conservatives who care about the Second Amendment should watch closely: the Justices can either protect a clear, common‑sense rule that respects private self‑defense, or they can open the door to creative history lessons that end up swallowing the right itself. Pick your launcegay wisely, because historical curiosities shouldn’t decide constitutional rights.
