Cartel Violence Argument Aims to Strip AR-15s of 2A Protection

A gun control attorney is telling the Supreme Court that because Mexican cartels like AR-15s, your right to own one should shrink. Bearing Arms breaks down why that argument doesn't hold up, and gun owners should pay attention.

Key points

• The argument: Jonathan Lowy, in an amicus brief for Global Action on Gun Violence in the Viramontes case, contends that cartel demand for U.S.-sold AR-15s undercuts the "common use" argument for their constitutional protection.
• The numbers: Lowy's brief cites estimates of 250,000 to 1 million firearms trafficked from the U.S. to Mexico annually, but Bearing Arms notes that figure covers all gun types, not just AR-15-style rifles, and includes Mexican government purchases later diverted to cartels.
• The flaw: Bearing Arms argues criminal popularity can't logically strip constitutional protection, pointing to Heller's recognition that handguns are both the top choice for criminals and for lawful self-defense, without losing protection.
• The legal angle: Lowy's "balancing" approach, weighing burdens on owners against public-safety claims, conflicts with Bruen, which requires regulations to match historical tradition rather than a judge's cost-benefit analysis.
• The irony: GAGV is a registered foreign agent for Mexico and the Bahamas, raising the question of whose interests are really being represented in this push to restrict American gun rights.

Quick take

This is a preview of where "assault weapons" litigation is headed: using cartel violence as a backdoor argument against ordinary Americans owning common rifles. Worth watching closely, since this brief is now in front of the Supreme Court.

Read the full story: bearingarms.com