Cook County's Shifting Rifle Definitions Undercut Its Own Gun Ban Defense

Cook County told the Supreme Court it once defined an AK-47 as an AR-15 platform weapon. Now, in a bid to kill the Viramontes case, the county's lawyers are arguing the two rifles aren't close enough to matter.

Snapshot

Bearing Arms reports that plaintiffs in Viramontes v. Cook County have filed a reply rejecting the county's claim that the case is moot because lead plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes wants out. The filing argues the county is contradicting its own ordinance language and its own prior briefing to manufacture a standing problem.

Key points

• Mootness argument: State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke contends that without Viramontes, remaining plaintiff Christopher Khaya (who wants an AK-pattern rifle, not an AR-15) and groups like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition lack standing to continue.
• Plaintiffs' rebuttal: The reply notes the question presented covers AR-15s "and similar semiautomatic rifles," and that Cook County's own ordinance groups AK-pattern guns with ARs as banned "assault weapons."
• Waiver claim: Plaintiffs argue the county previously called the AK-47 an "AR-15 platform weapon" in its own briefing, so it can't now claim the Galil falls outside the case.
• New declarations: Khaya now states he may want an AR-15 too, and Cook County resident Ed Smolen, an FPC/SAF member, says he keeps an AR-15 outside the county and would bring it home for self-defense if the ban fell.
• Bigger picture: Even if Viramontes were dismissed, a parallel challenge to Connecticut's assault weapon ban would still proceed, per Bearing Arms.

Quick take

Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards calls the county's shifting definitions weak and self-defeating, and predicts the justices are more likely to strike these bans unanimously than to dismiss the case on mootness grounds. The internal contradiction here does the plaintiffs' work for them.

Read the full story: bearingarms.com