Connecticut Defends AR-15 Ban at Supreme Court
Attorney General William Tong filed a legal brief supporting the state's prohibition on certain semi-automatic rifles.
Updated on Oct. 23, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should the government ban semi-automatic firearms to improve public safety?
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has filed a formal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending the state's existing ban on AR-15 rifles. The court is set to review the law as part of the case Grant v. Higgins.
Why it matters
The state argues that restricting weapons characterized by rapid fire and low recoil is consistent with historical firearm regulation and the Supreme Court's Bruen test. This case represents a significant challenge to the state's ability to regulate firearms deemed unusually dangerous.
The 2013 legislation explicitly added the AR-15 and Bushmaster Model XM15 to the list of banned weapons. The law prohibits semi-automatic, centerfire rifles that feature components such as a folding stock or a pistol grip.
The players
William Tong
William Tong is the Attorney General of Connecticut who leads the legal defense of the state's firearm regulations.
U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal judicial body in the United States currently set to hear challenges regarding state assault weapon bans.
The details
The brief submitted by the state cites a long tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weaponry, tracing back to 14th-century England. This legal defense follows the August 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the state's assault weapons ban.
Timeline
1993: Connecticut first enacted its assault weapons ban.
2013: Connecticut updated the assault weapons ban to include the AR-15.
August 2025: Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.
October 2026: Attorney General Tong filed the Supreme Court brief.
December 2, 2026: Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for the case.
Political Context
Connecticut is framing its current assault weapons law to align with the framework established by the Supreme Court's Bruen test. Opponents of such bans argue that these restrictions infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens to possess common firearms for self-defense.
Residents should be aware that the Supreme Court's pending decision could alter the legal status of specific semi-automatic rifles currently prohibited within the state. This outcome may influence future legislative efforts regarding firearm ownership requirements and prohibited weapon classifications in Connecticut.
The takeaway
This litigation serves as a high-stakes test for states maintaining bans on semi-automatic rifles following recent changes in judicial interpretation. Connecticut remains focused on the historical context of public safety regulations to justify its current legislative stance.
What happens next
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Grant v. Higgins and the related case Viramontes v. Cook County on December 2, 2026.
Further reading
Learn more about local regulations in Connecticut Law.
Source note: This article includes information reported by CT News Junkie.
Live Poll
Should the government ban semi-automatic firearms to improve public safety?
