UPDATE 11.12.25: Are you feeling comfortable? Maybe you live in one of the 29 states that have passed laws to protect constitutional carry, or the judges in your state know the value of the Second Amendment. But not everyone is living the free life when it comes to their firearms. Many states have enacted their own “assault weapons bans,” including Connecticut, where the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is pushing to overturn the state’s draconian regulations of firearms. The SAF writes in a recent news release on its court battle to bring freedom to Connecticut’s gun owners:
BELLEVUE, Wash. — Nov. 10, 2025 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Grant v. Rovella, SAF’s challenge to Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.
Connecticut is on the minority list of states that have banned, both by name and by feature set, commonly owned contemporary semi-automatic rifles. As part of SAF’s nationwide initiative to put an end to these types of unconstitutional arms bans, the organization filed suit on the grounds that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August, SAF is now presenting the case to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Grant joins three other SAF cases currently before the Court, including Viramontes, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban.
“Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.”
As noted in the petition, “… Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons’ extends to many ordinary and common semiautomatic firearms – including the AR-15 rifle. These covered firearms are mechanically and functionally identical to every other semiautomatic firearm in the way that they fire.” Originally filed in 2022, SAF is joined in the case by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.
“This case has far-reaching implications for the entire country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Residents of Connecticut and the other 10 states that have similar laws face felony prosecution for owning any number of firearms that are in common use around the country. The Constitution protects all arms in common use by citizens for lawful purposes, even those that activist lawmakers have lumped into artificially conjured definitions based on features that they don’t even understand.”
Your Second Amendment rights are one election away from being trampled on like those in Connecticut. Get your guns and your training now.
UPDATE 6.11.25: Radical governors and legislatures in big blue blob states around the country have banned versions of the AR-15, with what appears to be no logical reasoning. Now, the Supreme Court may finally step in and end bans on firearms that are some of the most popular in the country. At The Hill, Zach Schonfeld reports that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are prepared to hear a case on the constitutionality of such bans. He writes:
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case that involves whether possessing AR-15s is protected by the Second Amendment, but the court’s conservatives are signaling they soon will.
Only three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — voted to hear a challenge to Maryland’s ban on possessing AR-15s, barely falling short of the four votes required to take up a case.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh sent a strong signal that he will provide that crucial fourth vote in a future case once the issue percolates more in the lower courts.
“In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,” Kavanaugh wrote in a three-page written statement.
Kavanaugh, President Trump’s second appointee to the court, called Maryland’s law “questionable.” But he stressed the issue is currently being considered by several appeals courts that are weighing other states’ bans.
UPDATE 5.31.24: The NRA is America’s premier defender of the Second Amendment, but the organization recently won an overwhelming victory for the First Amendment at the Supreme Court. The court’s justices unanimously backed the NRA in NRA v. Vullo, a case that challenged the use of their power by government officials to silence opponents. The Wall Street Journal’s editors report:
The National Rifle Association alleged that New York state’s former Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo, coerced financial institutions that she regulated to stop doing business with it and other gun-rights groups. Ms. Vullo’s threats against insurers, the NRA argued, violated its First Amendment rights by punishing pro-gun advocacy.
All of the Justices agreed that the NRA made a plausible argument, overturning the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’s dismissal of its suit. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes for the Court, its Bantam Books (1963) precedent “stands for the principle that a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”
Applying Bantam Books, Justice Sotomayor writes that Ms. Vullo’s conduct “viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech.” Such context includes word choice and tone; existence of regulatory authority; and whether the speech was perceived as a threat and refers to adverse consequences.
Ms. Vullo “had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York,” Justice Sotomayor notes. Ms. Vullo improperly wielded that authority by offering to go easy on insurers in unrelated regulatory investigations if they stopped doing business with gun groups.
Ms. Vullo also issued threatening letters advising insurers to “continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations” and to manage “these risks and promote public health and safety.” Nice business you have there. Shame if something happened to it.
Insurers got her message and terminated their NRA contracts. Ms. Vullo argued that she was merely expressing her opinions. But as Justice Sotomayor stresses, “while a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
“Nor does her argument that her actions targeted ‘nonexpressive’ business relationships change the fact that the NRA alleges her actions were aimed at punishing or suppressing speech,” Justice Sotomayor explains. “Although Vullo can pursue violations of state insurance law, she cannot do so in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s protected expression.”
Justice Sotomayor emphasizes that covert threats against private intermediaries are especially subversive of speech rights since “intermediaries will often be less invested in the speaker’s message and thus less likely to risk the regulator’s ire.” When government officials abuse power behind closed doors, voters aren’t able to punish them at the ballot box.
The Court’s resounding ruling protects liberal and conservative advocacy alike. It puts government officials on notice that they can’t use their power to retaliate against and silence their opponents. In these hyper-partisan times, that’s an important message for the censors in the Biden Administration and those in a potential second Trump Presidency.
UPDATE 2.13.24: At Everyday Marksman, owner Matt Robertson, has put together a great “Field Guide to Buying Your First AR-15” for readers. One great part of his extensive and helpful guide is a list of what he considers the “minimum capable carbine features.” He writes:
Minimum Capable Carbine Features
- 16″Lightweight mid-length chrome lined barrel with a fixed front sight base
- Alternative: A 20″ lightweight or government profile barrel with fixed front sight base
- Either quality plastic handguards or a basic free float rail
- Quality collapsible stock
- Quality pistol grip of choice
- Standard trigger or something close to it like the BCM PNT or ALG ACT
- Quality rear sight, with or without adjustment
- If you have the money to buy an optic, then do so- buy one of good quality. If you don’t have the funds for a good one, then run the iron sights until you save for it.
- Bonus: If you plan on using the weapon for defensive purposes, then you should mount a good light on it
- Bonus: You should get a sling, because retention matters
Read more from Matt here.
Originally posted December 13, 2018.
You’ll benefit from spending some time reading “Top 10 Reasons You Should Own an AR-15,” by Mark Overstreet writing for the Federalist. One of the major misconceptions with the AR-15 is that it’s “automatic.” This is false.
If you pull the trigger of an AR-15 and hold it in for five or ten seconds—one round will be fired. That’s it. No more. You control the pace of the next round fired—not the rifle.
One more point, I own a Colt AR-15 and can tell you it shoots as smoothly as a hot knife through a stick of butter. You don’t have to reload it, taking your eye off the target after firing each round. Overstreet’s 10 reasons are:
- Being armed is your right and may be your civic duty.
- The AR-15 is the most useful firearm with which to defend against ‘every species of criminal usurpation’ because, first and foremost, it is a rifle.
- The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
- The AR-15 is one of the most validated rifles in history.
- The AR-15 is the most modular rifle in history.
- In most cases, you can fix your AR-15 yourself.
- The AR-15 is the rifle most commonly used for defensive firearm training.
- The AR-15 is the rifle most commonly used for marksmanship competitions.
- If you are skilled with your AR-15, you can help prepare young Americans for military service.
- The more Americans who own AR-15s, the more likely the Supreme Court will consider them “in common use.”
