Supreme Court on AR-15 and Magazine Bans: What Has Been Decided

The Governing Framework

Two doctrines from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) control how courts analyze bans on particular firearms or accessories:

• Common use: the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use at the time" by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
• Dangerous and unusual weapons: it does not protect weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, a limitation the Court traced to Blackstone.

Since NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), courts apply the text, history, and tradition test: if the amendment's plain text covers the conduct (here, keeping a particular arm), the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. United States v. Rahimi (2024) clarified that a historical analogue need be "relevantly similar," not a "historical twin." How these principles apply to semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds is the question the Court has not answered.

What Heller Said About Military-Style Rifles

Heller concerned a handgun ban, but Justice Scalia's majority opinion addressed an objection that its reasoning would leave military weapons unprotected:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." — District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627–28 (2008)

Both sides of the modern debate cite this passage. Governments defending bans read it as approval for prohibiting military-style rifles; challengers respond that the M-16 is a fully automatic weapon already restricted under federal law, while the semi-automatic AR-15 is, they argue, in common use. The Court itself has not resolved which reading is correct.

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), a short per curiam opinion on stun guns, added that the Second Amendment "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and rejected the argument that a weapon is unprotected merely because it was not common in 1791.

Cert Granted: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins (2026)

Action: Certiorari granted June 30, 2026, in Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238, from the Seventh Circuit) and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566, from the Second Circuit). The cases were consolidated for a single argument, expected in the fall of 2026, with a decision expected by the end of June 2027. It is the first time the Court has agreed to decide whether a ban on semi-automatic rifles is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Laws challenged: A Cook County, Illinois ordinance (the model for Illinois's later statewide Protect Illinois Communities Act) and Connecticut's assault weapon statute, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Both prohibit the sale, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic rifles with specified features, including AR-15-platform rifles.

Decisions below: The Seventh Circuit upheld the Cook County ordinance, reasoning that AR-style rifles are not materially different from the military M16 and therefore fall outside the amendment's protection under Heller's "M-16 rifles and the like" passage. The Second Circuit upheld Connecticut's law as a regulation of "unusually dangerous weapons" consistent with the nation's historical tradition.

Question presented: Whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles that are in common use by law-abiding citizens, and thus whether states and localities may ban them. The parties' dispute centers on the two frameworks described above: the challengers rely on Heller's common-use test and Caetano; the governments rely on the M-16 passage and the historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons.

What is at stake: If the Court holds the bans unconstitutional, similar laws in roughly a dozen states — including California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington — and in several counties and cities would be in jeopardy. If it upholds them, the post-Bruen circuit decisions described below would be confirmed.

Earlier Assault Weapon Ban Petitions

Before the June 2026 grant, the Court had declined every request to review an assault weapon ban. These orders and the separate writings that accompanied them frame the arguments now before the Court.

Friedman v. City of Highland Park (2015)

Action: Certiorari denied, December 7, 2015. The Seventh Circuit had upheld an Illinois city's ban on semi-automatic rifles with certain features and magazines over ten rounds.

Separate writing: Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial. He wrote that the Seventh Circuit's approach "flouts" Heller and that "roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles," making them arms in common use. This dissent is the source of the frequently cited "five million" figure.

Bianchi v. Frosh and the post-Bruen remands (2022)

Action: On June 30, 2022, days after deciding Bruen, the Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgments, and remanded ("GVR") several pending Second Amendment cases for reconsideration under the new test. They included Bianchi v. Frosh (Maryland's assault weapon ban), Duncan v. Bonta (California's magazine ban), and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Bruck (New Jersey's magazine ban). A GVR does not decide the merits; it instructs the lower court to apply the new framework.

Harrel v. Raoul / National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville (2024)

Action: Certiorari denied, July 2, 2024. The petitions challenged Illinois's Protect Illinois Communities Act, which the Seventh Circuit had allowed to remain in effect in Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023) at the preliminary-injunction stage. Justice Alito would have granted review.

Separate writing: Justice Thomas issued a statement respecting the denial, explaining that the cases came to the Court in an interlocutory posture and expressing hope that the Court would "consider the important issue" of whether AR-15s are protected "after the cases reach final judgment." He described the Seventh Circuit's reasoning that the AR-15 is not an "arm" within the amendment's text as "nonsensical."

Snope v. Brown (2025)

Action: Certiorari denied, June 2, 2025. This was the Maryland case (formerly Bianchi v. Brown) after final judgment: the en banc Fourth Circuit had upheld Maryland's assault weapon ban in August 2024, reasoning that the covered rifles are "most useful in military service" and fall outside the amendment's protection under Heller. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted review.

Separate writings: Justice Thomas dissented from the denial, arguing that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country and that the Court should not "let the Maryland law stand" without review. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a statement agreeing with the decision to deny for now, but stating that AR-15s are legal in 41 states and owned by millions of Americans, that the Fourth Circuit's decision was "questionable," and that the Court "should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." The Court did so one year later in Viramontes and Grant.

Magazine Capacity Cases at the Supreme Court

Duncan v. Bonta (2022 remand; petition pending since 2025)

Action: Vacated and remanded, June 30, 2022, in light of Bruen. California's ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds had been upheld by the en banc Ninth Circuit under means-end scrutiny in 2021. On remand, the district court again struck the law (2023), and the en banc Ninth Circuit again upheld it, 7–4, on March 20, 2025, reasoning that large-capacity magazines are accessories rather than "arms" and that, in any event, the ban fits within the tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons.

Current status: A new petition for certiorari (No. 25-198) was filed in 2025. The Court relisted it for conference more than twenty times during the October 2025 Term — one of the longest relist streaks on record — without granting or denying it, and held the petition over the summer. As of August 2026 it remains pending. The petitioners filed a supplemental brief in August 2026 pointing to the Third Circuit's contrary en banc decision (below) as a circuit split warranting review. Possible outcomes include a grant, a hold pending Viramontes and Grant, or a denial with separate writings.

Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey (2022 remand; 2026 en banc decision)

Action: Vacated and remanded, June 30, 2022, in light of Bruen. On remand, the case proceeded together with challenges to New Jersey's assault weapon ban. On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit held, 10–5, that New Jersey's bans on semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment, reasoning that magazines are "arms" within the amendment's text and that arms in common use — the court cited roughly 24 million AR-15-type rifles and more than 100 million 30-round magazines — cannot be banned. It was the first federal court of appeals to invalidate such a ban and directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Duncan. The Third Circuit subsequently stayed its mandate, so New Jersey's laws remain enforceable pending further review.

Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island (2025)

Action: Certiorari denied, June 2, 2025, the same day as Snope. The First Circuit had refused to preliminarily enjoin Rhode Island's ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, concluding that the challengers were unlikely to succeed on the merits.

Separate writing: Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented from the denial, arguing that magazines are protected "arms" or, at minimum, are integral to the operation of protected firearms, and that the lower courts had "resisted" the Court's Second Amendment precedents.

Benson v. United States (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2026)

Not a Supreme Court case, but frequently cited in the pending petitions. On March 5, 2026, a panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the District's highest local court) held 2–1 that D.C.'s ten-round magazine limit violates the Second Amendment because such magazines are in "common and ubiquitous use." On April 22, 2026, the full court vacated the panel decision and granted rehearing en banc, restoring the ban pending re-argument.

Summary Table

Two recent firearms decisions are sometimes grouped with these cases but were not Second Amendment rulings: Garland v. Cargill (2024) held that bump stocks are not "machineguns" under the National Firearms Act, and Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025) upheld ATF's rule on unfinished frames and receivers. Both were decided on statutory grounds. The Court's two Second Amendment merits decisions of the October 2025 Term — United States v. Hemani (June 18, 2026, unanimous, on disarming marijuana users under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) and Wolford v. Lopez (June 25, 2026, 6–3, on Hawaii's default ban on carrying in businesses open to the public) — did not involve rifles or magazines, though both reaffirmed the Heller–Bruen framework the AR-15 cases will be decided under.

Where the Lower Courts Stand

In the absence of a Supreme Court ruling, the federal courts of appeals have supplied the operative law. Through mid-2026, every court of appeals to reach the merits after Bruen had upheld the challenged ban:

• Seventh Circuit — Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023): Illinois's ban likely constitutional; the covered rifles are "much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense."
• Fourth Circuit — Bianchi v. Brown (en banc, 2024): Maryland's ban upheld; the AR-15 is "most useful in military service" and outside the amendment's scope.
• First Circuit — Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island (2024): magazine limit likely constitutional; Capen v. Campbell (2025): Massachusetts's assault weapon and magazine bans likely constitutional.
• Ninth Circuit — Duncan v. Bonta (en banc, 2025): California's magazine limit upheld.
• Second Circuit — Grant v. Higgins: Connecticut's ban upheld as a regulation of unusually dangerous weapons (now before the Supreme Court).
• Seventh Circuit — Viramontes v. Cook County: Cook County's ordinance upheld (now before the Supreme Court).

That unanimity ended on July 17, 2026, when the en banc Third Circuit in ANJRPC v. Attorney General of New Jersey held 10–5 that New Jersey's rifle and magazine bans are unconstitutional. There is now a direct split: the Third Circuit against the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth. Until the Supreme Court rules, bans in states outside the Third Circuit remain in force, and New Jersey's remain enforceable while the Third Circuit's mandate is stayed.

The Open Questions

With Viramontes and Grant set for argument, the Court will have to resolve at least the following:

1. What counts as an "arm"? Whether a semi-automatic rifle with particular features, or a detachable magazine, is an "arm" covered by the amendment's text, so that the burden shifts to the government under Bruen.
2. How is "common use" measured? By the number of weapons owned nationally, by the number of states permitting them, or by how often they are actually used for self-defense. See the common use doctrine and its circularity critique.
3. What is the relevant historical tradition? Whether founding-era and Reconstruction-era regulation of particularly dangerous weapons (Bowie knives, trap guns, and later machine guns) supplies a "relevantly similar" analogue under Rahimi.
4. Does "dangerous and unusual" require both? Whether a weapon that is dangerous but widely owned can be prohibited. See dangerous and unusual weapons.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Supreme Court ruled on whether AR-15 bans are constitutional?

Not yet. On June 30, 2026 the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins; argument is expected in the fall of 2026 and a decision by June 2027. Before that, the Court had declined review in every assault weapon ban case presented to it — Friedman (2015), Harrel (2024), and Snope (2025).

When will the Supreme Court decide the AR-15 case?

Cases argued in the fall of a Term are almost always decided by the end of that Term, so a decision is expected by late June 2027. The argument date will appear on the Supreme Court's calendar once set.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on magazine capacity limits?

No. It vacated Duncan v. Bonta in 2022 without deciding the question, denied review in Ocean State Tactical in 2025 over a three-Justice dissent, and has held the renewed Duncan petition without action since 2025. The Court may take up magazines together with, or after, the rifle cases.

Are AR-15 bans currently legal?

Outside the Third Circuit, yes: the bans in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington remain in force under the circuit decisions upholding them. The Third Circuit held New Jersey's ban unconstitutional in July 2026, but stayed its mandate, so that law too remains enforceable for now. The Supreme Court's decision in Viramontes and Grant will settle the question nationally.

What is the most recent Supreme Court Second Amendment decision?

Wolford v. Lopez (June 25, 2026), which struck down Hawaii's default ban on carrying firearms in businesses open to the public; it did not involve rifles or magazines. See the complete list of Supreme Court Second Amendment cases.