Alvin Bragg’s Prosecutor Coalition Calls the AR-15 an ‘Equalizer,’ Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Cook County and Connecticut Bans

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NEW YORK, NY — Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, a coalition co-chaired by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. and Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein, announced Oct. 29 that it has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. An amicus brief is a friend-of-the-court filing from a group that is not a party to the case but wants the justices to hear its argument. PAGV is asking the Court to affirm the Second and Seventh Circuit decisions that upheld the Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, assault weapons bans.

The two cases are consolidated and set for oral argument on Dec. 2, 2026, with a decision expected before the Court’s term ends in the summer of 2027, as reported by WRNJ Radio. WRNJ also reports that New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and Massachusetts filed a separate multistate brief on the same side, joined by attorneys general from 17 other states and the District of Columbia.

PAGV’s headline argument, according to the Manhattan DA’s announcement, is this: “The Second Amendment does not entitle civilians to carry firearms that are designed for military combat,” such as the AR-15 rifle.

Per the announcement, the brief says AR-15 rifles “pose a novel regulatory challenge that the Founders could not have foreseen.” It argues the rifles serve as an “equalizer” between amateur marksmen and trained professionals, including law enforcement officers and armed security guards, and that amateur shooters can “outgun” first responders.

Read that “equalizer” line from the other side of the door. A rifle that puts a less experienced person on even footing with a trained one is exactly the quality I would want working for an ordinary homeowner. The coalition describes that same quality and asks the Court to treat it as a reason to ban.

“Simply put, states should be able to enforce bans on weapons of war,” Bragg said in the release. “Prosecutors Against Gun Violence urges the Supreme Court to uphold Illinois and Connecticut’s assault weapons bans.”

The legal ask is the part gun owners should watch closest. The 2022 Bruen decision requires a gun law to fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. According to the announcement, the PAGV brief concludes that “Bruen’s historical tradition test gives states more leeway to regulate AR-15s than they would have when dealing with other kinds of firearms.” In plain terms, the coalition wants a looser version of the test for one specific rifle.

PAGV says its members enforce comparable bans in New York, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington. That patchwork is a reminder of how much the law shifts at a state line, the same reason I keep concealed carry permit information by state current for readers.

The other side is in the fight too. On Sept. 4, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, joined by Century Arms, Canik USA, B&T USA and Fostech, filed their own amicus brief urging the Court to strike down the bans in Viramontes. GOA estimates that 20 to 40 million AR-15s are owned by Americans. Its brief argues the government cannot ban commonly owned firearms simply because politicians or judges consider them too dangerous or “military-style,” and that the Second Amendment does not draw a line between civilian and military weapons.

“A favorable ruling would strike a major blow to some of the nation’s most extreme gun control laws, and states with ‘assault weapon’ bans will face a reckoning like never before,” said Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.

The Supreme Court has not ruled in either case, and there is no opinion yet. Every description of the arguments in this article comes from the groups that filed the briefs, as they characterized their own filings.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman With VA Concealed Carry Permit Arrested After Self-Defense in Maryland — SAF Urges Supreme Court Review
• ‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Reject Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users
• James Reeves Subpoenaed for Being a Guntuber: Highland Park Lawsuit Against Smith & Wesson Reaches Into Firearms Media and Defines Unpaid Reviews as ‘Advertising’
• ATF Confirms to Congress It Holds 1,414,088,513 Firearm Transaction Records, 92 Percent of Them Digitized

Both camps lean on the military comparison and land in opposite places. The prosecutors say a rifle designed for combat falls outside the right. GOA says the right never drew that line at all. A serious defensive mindset means understanding which of those arguments the justices adopt, because the answer decides what a law-abiding person can keep in the safe in a lot of states.

I will continue tracking Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins through the Dec. 2 argument and the decision that follows.

Read the original story: Alvin Bragg’s Prosecutor Coalition Calls the AR-15 an ‘Equalizer,’ Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Cook County and Connecticut Bans