WASHINGTON — The recent filing by Cook County in one of the most high-profile gun-related cases in front of the Supreme Court strongly indicates that they anticipate an outcome in which the court rules in favor of gun rights, a positive sign for the Second Amendment community.
On November 5, the respondents in the consolidated case of Viramontes v. Cook County filed a suggestion of mootness asking the court to dismiss the case as moot. Their request is based upon an October 29 motion by petitioners to dismiss Cutberto Viramontes, for whom the case is named. No reason was provided in the dismissal motion.
As a result of this dismissal, respondents sought to argue that the petitioners no longer had legal standing to bring the case. In layman’s terms, they argued that because Mr. Viramontes was no longer part of the case, the petitioners could no longer show a direct connection to and harm from the action being challenged.
The specific legal reasoning behind the mootness request is technically baseless. Mr. Viramontes wished to own a banned AR-15, while Mr. Khaya wished to own a banned IMI Galil. Though both are semi-automatic rifles, because they are different platforms (the Galil is based upon the AK-47), and the case specifically addresses the question “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles,” the respondents contend the court should dismiss the case.
The gun rights groups who are part of the case, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (FPC), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), were quick to correct that error. They pointed out that there is still another named petitioner, Christopher Khaya, and that a second case granted cert on the same issue.
Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation, brought further clarity to the filing and the possible implications:
Cook County may have just foolishly guaranteed that the eventual ruling won’t be inadvertently limited to just the AR15 platform. Not that it ever should have been; “and similar semiautomatic rifles” always meant more than just AR15s to cover firearms like the Galil, that’s the whole point. But by drawing attention to that aspect of the question presented, I think it closes the book on the concern that the ruling could be misread as only applying to AR15s specifically.
Viramontes is the first-ever case that SCOTUS will hear on the topic of AR-15s and semi-automatic rifles. Though the case does not specifically address “high capacity” magazines, both sides anticipate a ruling will provide some measure of guidance on magazines.
Join the conversation
Sign in with one click to comment under your name, or comment as a guest below.