This December, the Supreme Court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. These cases present a straightforward question: Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles?
For those of us in South Jersey, this is not an abstract constitutional debate. New Jersey has prohibited many commonly owned semiautomatic rifles for decades. In July 2026, the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that New Jersey’s restrictions on these rifles and standard-capacity magazines violate the Constitution. The state is fighting that ruling, and the restrictions remain in effect while the legal process continues. The outcome of these cases could have a direct impact on whether New Jersey residents can finally exercise the rights the Third Circuit recognized.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court made clear that this right belongs to ordinary citizens and includes firearms in common use for lawful purposes. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court established that firearm restrictions must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
AR-15-style rifles are among the most commonly owned rifles in America. Millions of law-abiding citizens own them for self-defense, sport shooting, and other lawful purposes. They are semiautomatic firearms, meaning that one round is fired with each pull of the trigger. The same basic operating principle is found in many other legal firearms.
The appearance of a firearm does not determine whether it is constitutionally protected. A rifle does not become unprotected simply because it looks military, has a particular stock, or includes features that politicians find intimidating. The Constitution does not restrict Americans to the least effective or least popular means of self-defense. It protects individual rights, not government preferences.
From a libertarian perspective, the burden should be on the government to justify restricting the rights of peaceful citizens. The Founders understood that an armed citizenry served both a practical purpose and a constitutional one. Private ownership of arms provides individuals with the means to defend themselves while limiting the concentration of power in government.
Categorical bans turn that principle upside down. They treat ordinary citizens as potential criminals and give the government authority to decide which commonly owned firearms are acceptable. That is precisely the kind of government discretion that a constitutional republic should approach with caution.
Bruen requires the government to justify firearm restrictions through historical tradition. It does not permit the government to restrict constitutional rights simply because legislators believe a particular policy would be beneficial. The historical record includes regulations governing the carrying of arms, certain dangerous and unusual weapons, and the possession of firearms by particular individuals who pose a threat. It does not establish a comparable tradition of banning commonly owned rifles simply because they are effective or because criminals sometimes misuse them.
In Heller, the Supreme Court rejected a ban on handguns because they are commonly owned for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense. The same constitutional principle applies to AR-15-style rifles. Their popularity and widespread lawful use cannot be dismissed simply because some people object to their appearance or capabilities.
The government may punish criminal conduct. It may prosecute those who use firearms to commit violent acts. What it should not do is deprive millions of peaceful citizens of their rights because a small minority commits crimes. The existence of criminals does not justify treating the rest of the population as criminals in advance.
Public safety is a legitimate concern, but it does not give government unlimited authority. A constitutional right cannot depend on whether its exercise is convenient for legislators or popular with the public. If the government can prohibit a commonly owned firearm because it considers that firearm too dangerous, there is little principled limit to the weapons it might prohibit next.
New Jersey’s restrictions also create an arbitrary geographic divide. A firearm that is lawful for a citizen to own in Pennsylvania may be prohibited for a citizen living just across the Delaware River. The constitutional rights of Americans should not depend on which side of a state line they happen to live. The Fourteenth Amendment exists, in part, to ensure that states respect the constitutional rights of their citizens.
These bans also encourage an endless cycle of legislative redefinition. When a law prohibits firearms based on selected features, lawmakers can expand the prohibition by adding more features or changing the definition of a prohibited weapon. The result is a growing body of restrictions that can criminalize otherwise peaceful conduct without addressing the underlying causes of violence.
We do not prohibit automobiles because some people drive recklessly. We do not ban knives because some people use them to commit assaults. We hold individuals accountable for their conduct. The same principle should apply to firearms.
AR-15-style rifles have legitimate civilian uses, including home defense and recreational shooting. Their design offers practical advantages in accuracy, ergonomics, and controllability. People may reasonably disagree about which firearm is best suited to a particular purpose, but that disagreement does not justify allowing the government to prohibit an entire category of commonly owned firearms.
The broader issue is the proper relationship between the individual and the state. A free society does not require citizens to surrender their rights whenever government promises greater security in return. Concentrated government power has historically presented its own dangers. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the constitutional safeguards intended to preserve individual liberty and prevent that power from becoming absolute.
Recognizing this right does not mean opposing every firearm regulation. It means insisting that restrictions remain within constitutional limits. The government must demonstrate that a restriction is consistent with the Constitution rather than simply asserting that the restriction serves a desirable public policy.
The Supreme Court should hold that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of law-abiding citizens to possess AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles. These firearms are commonly owned for lawful purposes, and categorical bans must satisfy the historical standard established by Bruen. Political disapproval, cosmetic features, and the criminal misuse of firearms do not independently justify prohibiting them.
For New Jersey residents, the Third Circuit’s July 2026 decision represents an important step toward restoring constitutional protections. The remaining legal proceedings will determine whether that ruling takes effect and whether the state can continue enforcing its restrictions.
The proper response to criminal misuse is to punish the guilty, not disarm the innocent. The government should not be permitted to take away a constitutional right from peaceful citizens simply because some people misuse that right.
The principle is straightforward: The Constitution exists to limit government power and protect individual liberty. The right to keep and bear arms is no exception.
Loren Jay Chassels, DO, MST, FAAIM, FAWM
Disclaimer: Member articles are published to encourage debate and discussion within the party. The views and opinions in each piece belong to the author and do not always reflect any platform plank or official LP stance. We encourage people to challenge the status quo — including our own.