Gun regulations took center stage at the Supreme Court this past term, and they will again in the months ahead. This time the focus is squarely on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.
In its landmark 2022 Bruen decision, the Court held that modern gun rules must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. While some observers thought the justices eased off that demanding standard in the 2024 Rahimi case, two June 2026 decisions show the historical test remains firmly in place.
The Court struck down Hawaii’s attempt to tightly limit where guns can be carried in public. In a separate unanimous ruling, it held that a federal law blocking regular marijuana users from possessing firearms was too broad. In both cases, the majority found the restrictions lacked sufficient support in laws from the 1700s and 1800s.
A Major Test Is Coming This Term
That approach faces its biggest challenge yet this fall. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear consolidated challenges to state and local bans on semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15. The cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess these commonly owned rifles.
Gun-rights groups view the recent 9-0 marijuana decision as a positive signal that the Court is applying the historical test rigorously rather than searching for loose analogies. Gun-control advocates counter that nothing in the recent opinions undercuts the Court’s earlier language allowing restrictions on “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
How Lower Courts Have Split on AR-15s
Applying the historical test to modern sporting rifles has produced conflicting results. A divided panel of the 7th Circuit recently upheld Illinois’ ban, noting that the ubiquitous firearm from 1791 through the mid-19th century was a single-shot muzzleloader. AR-15s with large-capacity magazines, the majority said, are “a far cry from these antecedents.” The court pointed to historical restrictions on Bowie knives as a relevant analogue.
Days later, the 3rd Circuit went the other way on New Jersey’s similar ban. In a 10-5 decision, the majority rejected the Bowie knife comparison. There was no evidence those knives were commonly used for lawful purposes before being restricted, the court noted. By contrast, tens of millions of AR-15-style rifles are in civilian hands today and are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes.
Common Use Versus “Dangerous and Unusual”
Industry data underscores the “common use” argument. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates more than 30 million modern sporting rifles—AR-15 platform and similar rifles—have entered the civilian market since 1990. These firearms are frequently described as the most popular centerfire rifles in the country and are often called the “iPhone of guns” because of their modularity and widespread ownership.
Under Heller, the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes and does not extend to weapons that are both dangerous and unusual. How the Supreme Court defines those categories, and how it weighs historical analogues against modern ownership numbers, will likely decide the cases.
The Stakes for Law-Abiding Owners
The upcoming arguments carry high stakes. AR-15-style rifles feature prominently in public debates over mass shootings, making them a primary target for restrictive legislation. At the same time, they are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, sport, and recreation.
The historical tradition test requires courts to look backward for analogues rather than forward to policy outcomes. Whether that framework ultimately protects the most popular rifles in America—or allows states and localities to ban them—will be answered in the coming term.