The Supreme Court is set to review a case in December that will address bans on modern semiautomatic firearms. The justices are likely to focus on several existing cases as they approach what could be a significant ruling.
On June 30, the court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a legal challenge against a firearm ban enacted by a county in the Chicago area. This situation raises the question of which cases the justices may refer to in their decision-making about these bans that have emerged in various states. There are five cases that may come into play.
District of Columbia v. Heller
In this landmark ruling, the court determined that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home, rather than solely maintaining a collective militia right. The court invalidated Washington D.C.’s handgun prohibition and the requirement that legally owned firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked.
The majority opinion, penned by then-Justice Antonin Scalia, stated that the mention of “militia” in the Amendment serves a prefatory purpose and does not restrict the operative rights of individuals. Scalia emphasized that self-defense is a critical aspect of the rights safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,” he noted.
The dissenting justices contended that the Amendment primarily pertains to military service and allows for significant regulation of civilian gun ownership.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
In this case, the court held that the right protected by the Second Amendment also applies to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment. Consequently, the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park needed to comply with constitutional standards similar to those in D.C.
Justice Samuel Alito’s dominant opinion primarily relied on due-process incorporation, while Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, suggesting instead the privileges or immunities clause. The 5–4 decision mirrored the split seen in Heller, with dissenters expressing concerns that this incorporation could eliminate numerous state and city gun regulations.
“The Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” Alito asserted.
Following the McDonald ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down Illinois’ ban on concealed carry, resulting in the state implementing a “shall issue” law for concealed carry permits.
Caetano v. Massachusetts
In a brief unsigned ruling, the court vacated a decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Court stating that stun guns weren’t covered by the Second Amendment. The court reiterated that the right to bear arms includes modern weapons, even if they were not in existence at the time of the Amendment’s ratification, and that this right applies to state laws as well.
Justices Thomas and Alito underscored that modern self-defense tools cannot be banned merely because they are new or uncommon in military use. This case may significantly influence the court’s decision in Viramontes, especially since supporters of assault weapon bans often argue that the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated today’s firearms capabilities.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
The court invalidated New York’s requirement for a “proper cause” to obtain a public carry license, ruling that law-abiding citizens have a Second Amendment right to carry commonly used firearms outside their homes.
Thomas’s opinion dismissed the two-step interest-balancing evaluation that many lower courts had employed post-Heller and McDonald. Instead, it asserted that a gun regulation is only valid if it aligns with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the country.
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Thomas articulated. “The government must then demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Wolford v. Lopez
The court determined that Hawaii cannot penalize licensed concealed-carry individuals for bringing handguns onto privately owned property that is open to the public, unless the property owner expressly prohibits such action. The majority decided that this general ban hindered the right to carry firearms for self-defense in daily settings.
Alito led a 6–3 majority, stating that the law was at odds with the text and historical nuances established after Bruen. He particularly criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court for suggesting that the Second Amendment needed to give ground to the “Aloha spirit.”
“As established in McDonald, the Second Amendment carries the same meaning throughout the United States,” Alito remarked. “It cannot be sacrificed for the spirit of Aloha in Hawaii any more than it can yield to sentiments from the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald).”
The dissenters viewed the statute more as a property-rights issue rather than a ban on firearms, arguing that it left property owners free to permit carrying if they wished.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Viramontes on December 2, with a ruling anticipated in June 2027.
