Hurry up and wait.
That's the lot of the Second Amendment activist when it comes to Supreme Court action.
It makes perfect sense in a court dominated by restrained originalists, loath to uproot American jurisprudence rashly.
We waited 14 years between Heller - which started the process of cementing "individual right" as the official definition of the Second Amendment - and Bruen, which ruled that the right applied to commonly owned firearms.
"Blue" cities have tried to weasel around those decisions - making carry permit applicants jump through absurd hoops or, in a case near and dear to me personally, trying to squeeze in "assault weapon" bans on the theory that the founding fathers, who'd just fought a guerrilla war for indepenence, really didn't mean military firearms when they wrote that a militia was essential to defend freedom and thus the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", pinky swear, it was all about hunting.
The SCOTUS moves slowly. But it's moving again, taking on two big-blue-city "assault weapon" bans at once:
BREAKING: Supreme Court Takes Up FPC Lawsuit to Strike Down “Assault Weapon” Bans Nationwide https://t.co/8SJKeAu7Aq
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 30, 2026
The percolation has finally come to an end. After years of dodging the issue, the Supreme Court announced today — the last day of its 2025/2026 session — that it will hear two “assault weapon” ban cases next term. SCOTUS will consolidate Viramontes v. Cook County, a Seventh Circuit (Illinois) case and Grant v. Higgins from the Second Circuit (Connecticut).
That means the Court will finally decide the constitutionality of banning America’s favorite rifle, along with other commonly owned and used firearms that politicians and the civilian disarmament industrial complex have tendentiously branded as weapons of war as justification for outlawing them.
This is a moment that the gun rights community has been waiting for since Bruen was handed down in 2022. Last year, when the Court refused to hear two other hardware cases, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a point of writing that the denial didn’t mean the Court agreed with lower courts upholding the bans . . .
I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade. And, further percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR–15s appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents.
The cases cut straight to the heart ot blue city gun grabs, going after bans in Connecticut...
Along with Viramontes, SCOTUS granted cert in Grant v. Higgins today - our challenge to Connecticut's total ban on so-called assault weapons. @2AFDN and @CCDL_CarryOn have been tireless in their defense of the Second Amendment, and this is a much deserved victory for them.… pic.twitter.com/R4pVosUA7d
— Cameron Atkinson (@camlatkinson) June 30, 2026
...and Chicago:
Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern guns, which was the precursor for the nearly identical statewide ban passed by the Illinois legislature. In Grant, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles – both by name and by feature set. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, SAF presented the case to the Supreme Court for consideration.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”
The high court appears to be continuing its practice of tackling 2nd Amendment issues in small pieces, turning down several other cases related to gun ownership and carry by 18- 21-year-olds (which are all the more reason to get involved with your local 2nd Amendment groups).
Illinois' attorney general is not going down without a fight:
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban.
— State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke (@saeileenburke) June 30, 2026
My statement: pic.twitter.com/215iPo8fwn
After the mixed bag of results last Tuesday, it pays not to be cocky (if you're not involved in your local/state gun rights group, we need to talk), but the court has been pretty consistent on the issue for the past 20 years or so.
To borrow a phrase - fight, fight, fight.
