Organizations representing thousands of sheriffs nationwide are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down bans on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Ill., and other jurisdictions across the country.
On Aug. 31, the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Western States Sheriffs’ Association filed an amicus brief backing Second Amendment advocates challenging restrictions imposed by Illinois and other Democratic-led states and local governments.
The laws at issue prohibit the sale or possession of numerous semiautomatic firearms classified by those jurisdictions as “assault weapons.”
In their filing, the sheriffs’ groups argue that such restrictions violate the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
They also contend that the bans can undermine public safety by restricting lawful gun ownership while doing little to deter criminals from obtaining or using firearms.
“Law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once and cannot automatically appear instantaneously at the scene of the crime,” the sheriffs wrote in their brief.
“Response times may vary from a few minutes to half an hour depending on manpower and geographical area. And a violent crime, especially a home invasion, can occur in seconds,” the brief continued.
“The only viable option for an innocent citizen to have immediate protection is to have a weapon for self-defense,” they wrote.
The filing is expected to be one of many briefs submitted as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments later this year over the constitutionality of bans on so-called “assault weapons,” including restrictions on AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.
In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges involving Cook County’s ban on AR-15s and similar weapons, as well as a separate state-level ban in Connecticut.
Both cases were brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, which has argued that such restrictions violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Gun-rights advocates are hoping the court’s decision to take up the cases will lead to a broader ruling affecting similar laws in Illinois and other states.
The Cook County case is one of several ongoing legal battles over assault-weapons bans nationwide.
In Illinois, courts have been considering challenges to the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act since the law was enacted in 2023.
The measure prohibits a broad range of semiautomatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Democratic lawmakers and Gov. JB Pritzker (D) approved the law following the 2022 mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, where the gunman used a semiautomatic rifle.
Second Amendment advocates argue the law conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, including the court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Cook County’s ordinance predates the statewide Illinois law.
The county first restricted certain semiautomatic firearms in 1993 and later expanded the ordinance to cover additional weapons and large-capacity magazines.
The Cook County restrictions have faced legal challenges for years, although courts in Illinois have generally upheld both the county ordinance and the state’s broader gun-control measures to this point.
Federal appeals courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, have generally upheld restrictions on AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms, concluding that governments may regulate or prohibit weapons they determine are exceptionally dangerous or closely associated with military use.
One federal judge in Illinois, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn, reached the opposite conclusion and ruled the state’s ban unconstitutional.
That decision was later reversed by the Seventh Circuit.
In July, a divided three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Illinois lawmakers could continue prohibiting AR-15s and other firearms covered by the law if they are deemed “unusually dangerous” or “capable of unprecedented lethality.”
The sheriffs’ associations challenged that reasoning in their Supreme Court brief.
They argued that AR-15s and similar firearms operate like other semiautomatic weapons, firing one round for each pull of the trigger, and should not be treated as uniquely dangerous.
The groups also argued that such rifles can serve legitimate defensive purposes, including protecting homes and families during violent encounters.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
