Cook County Tries Mootness Gambit to Avoid Gun Ban Showdown

Cook County is trying a last-minute legal maneuver to keep its assault weapons ban away from the Supreme Court, asking justices to dismiss Viramontes v. Cook County on mootness grounds just weeks before scheduled oral arguments.

Key points

• The withdrawal angle: State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke argues the case could become moot if named plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes, who wants an AR-15, is no longer a party, since co-plaintiff Christopher Khaya wants an IMI Galil instead.
• Standing dispute: Burke claims Khaya lacks standing because the record doesn't show the Galil operates like an AR-15 or is commonly used for self-defense, an argument Bearing Arms says conflates standing with the merits question.
• Organizational plaintiffs at risk: Burke contends Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation would lose standing too, since their only identified Cook County members are Viramontes and Khaya.
• SAF pushes back: Attorney Kostas Moros called the move legally weak and argued it may backfire by reinforcing that the Court's ruling covers more than just AR-15s.
• Connecticut backstop: Even if Cook County escapes, the companion case challenging Connecticut's ban, Grant v. Higgins, remains, and the Court has previously proceeded with cases despite a plaintiff's attempted withdrawal.

Quick take

This looks like a jurisdiction trying to dodge a bad outcome rather than defend its law on the merits. Bearing Arms makes a solid case that the standing argument is shaky, and the Connecticut case gives the Court a clean path forward regardless of what happens to Viramontes.

Read the full story: bearingarms.com