The Supreme Court of the United States may have signaled in an unrelated case that they’re getting close to ruling that so-called “assault rifles” such as AR-15s may be legally possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.
Earlier this month the court ruled in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars Mexico from suing lawful gunmakers for the sale of weapons to Mexican gun traffickers, absent proof that the gunmakers aided and abetted in such sales.
Not only was the decision unanimous, 9-0, but Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal members, delivered the opinion.
The decision itself wasn’t all that surprising given that the PLCAA is pretty straightforward. It protects gun manufacturers from liability for the unlawful use of their products, such as the commission of a crime.
What was surprising was that Kagan’s opinion wandered a bit off the reservation, and seemed to make the case that AR-15-style rifles may be lawfully owned by the general public and used for lawful purposes, such as hunting, sport shooting and home defense.
“Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of ‘military style’ assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles,” Kagan wrote.
“But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country),” she continued, adding that “The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.”
This language came to the attention of the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR), which has a case pending in the U.S. Second Judicial Circuit, in which they’re seeking to enjoin the state of Connecticut from enforcing its ban on AR-15-style rifles.
The court had already received briefs and heard oral arguments in the case, but Kagan’s language prompted the NAGR to make a supplemental filing with the Second Circuit.
“In D.C. v. Heller the Court held that the government may not ban firearms that are in common use by law abiding citizens. In Smith & Wesson Brands, the Court held that AR–15 rifles and AK–47 rifles are in common use by ordinary citizens,” NAGR’s filing said in part.
Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Janelle Medeiros shot back that the Supreme Court case was decided solely on the PLCAA, and that the legality of AR-15s was not at issue in the case.
“This has nothing to do with the PLCAA. The question here is whether Connecticut may prohibit assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, in part because they are ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons unprotected by the Second Amendment,” she wrote.
Cam Edwards, an editor at Bearing Arms, a popular Second Amendment news and opinion site, found humor in Connecticut’s response to NAGR, which he condensed down to: “Please Ignore What SCOTUS Just Said About AR-15s.”
He conceded that Kagan’s observations about AR-15s was “dicta and non-binding on future cases,” but added that the Second Circuit shouldn’t just ignore it out of hand.
“It’s impossible to reconcile the unanimous position of SCOTUS that AR-15s are ‘widely legal,’ ‘purchased by ordinary consumers,’ and ‘the most popular rifle in the country’ with the idea that these same guns are dangerous and unusual,” said Edwards, who’s also a frequent Newsmax TV contributor.
To be sure, all firearms are dangerous. But there’s nothing unusual about an AR-15 and other firearms built on that platform.
The high court had the opportunity to rule on an AR-15 case this term, and a second case on the legality of so-called “high-capacity” ammunition magazines. It considered both cases at 15 weekly conferences before declining to hear them.
No matter how the Second Circuit rules on the Connecticut case, it’s going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court — guaranteed. And it would be an ideal case for the high court to hear because it covers both issues — the guns and the magazines.
That would be a great opportunity for the court to finally put these two issues to rest, and when opportunity knocks, it’s best to answer the call.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and is a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz’s Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
