Second Amendment protection for semiautomatic rifles
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — consolidated cases — to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles. Lower courts upheld state and county bans on such weapons, but the Supreme Court's acceptance of the cases signals potential reconsideration. The outcome will determine whether assault-style weapon bans at the state and local level are constitutional.
Should the Second Amendment protect the right to own AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
The Court agreed to address the following question, as framed in the Viramontes petition: 'Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.'
The Illinois case was brought by Cutberto Viramontes, who went to federal court in Chicago in 2021 to argue that the county's prohibition violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The justices have declined several petitions asking them to take up cases about state bans on assault weapons, restrictions on the capacity of ammunition magazines, and minimum age requirements for guns.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
States and localities should be free to ban semiautomatic rifles like AR-15s as dangerous military-style weapons.
Semiautomatic rifles may be regulated heavily at the state level, even if not outright banned by federal law.
Courts should weigh public safety evidence when deciding if semiautomatic rifle bans are constitutional.
The Second Amendment protects commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, but reasonable regulations are permissible.
The Second Amendment fully protects the right to own AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms; bans are unconstitutional.
Concealed carry on private property open to the public
The Supreme Court is deciding in Wolford v. Lopez whether Hawaii's law — which prohibits licensed concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public (such as restaurants, parks, and banks) unless the property owner explicitly grants permission — violates the Second Amendment. The case resolves a circuit split between the Ninth and Second Circuits and has broad national implications for how states may regulate where lawful gun carriers can bring their weapons.
Should states be allowed to prohibit concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
One will look at whether it is constitutional to restrict people from carrying firearms on private property, and the other concerns drug use and gun rights.
In response to the Bruen decision, Hawaii passed a law limiting where concealed carry permit holders could bring firearms. The law prohibited guns on most private property open to the public, such as restaurants, parks, and banks, unless the property owner gave permission.
Wolford v. Lopez, which was argued on Jan. 20, is a challenge to a Hawaii law that prohibits the carrying of licensed concealed handguns on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
The Court later held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment right applies equally to the Federal Government and the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, settling the question whether the Second Amendment embodies a uniform national standard.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
States should be free to ban concealed carry in all public spaces, regardless of property owner wishes.
States may prohibit concealed carry on private property open to the public unless owners affirmatively permit it.
States may set default rules on concealed carry in public spaces, but property owners should have final say either way.
Concealed carry should be allowed on private property open to the public unless the owner explicitly bans it.
Licensed concealed carry holders should have an unrestricted right to carry on any private property open to the public.
Large-capacity ammunition magazine restrictions
Several states have enacted bans on large-capacity magazines — devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition — for use with semiautomatic weapons. Multiple petitions asking the Supreme Court to strike down these restrictions have been pending, though the Court has so far declined to take up these cases. The question of whether such bans are consistent with the Second Amendment under the Bruen historical framework remains unresolved at the national level.
Should the federal government ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
The justices apparently did not act on other gun-rights cases that it had been considering at its conferences for several months, involving challenges to bans on large-capacity magazines – that is, devices that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition that can be fed into a semi-automatic weapon.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Large-capacity magazines should be banned nationwide as they enable mass casualty shootings with no lawful purpose.
States should be free to ban large-capacity magazines, and Congress should pass a federal ban as well.
Congress should study evidence on magazine capacity limits before deciding whether a federal ban is warranted.
States may limit magazine capacity if they choose, but the federal government should not impose a national ban.
Magazine capacity restrictions are unconstitutional infringements on Second Amendment rights and should be struck down.
Federal assault weapons ban
Legislation to prohibit the sale and manufacture of assault weapons at the federal level has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress, most notably as part of the Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act of 2026, introduced by Senators Kaine and Warner on the 19th anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting. This follows years of failed attempts in Congress to enact such a ban, and comes as some Democratic lawmakers signal gun control is no longer their top legislative priority.
Should Congress enact a federal ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons?
Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.
The bill includes provisions to mandate reporting of lost and stolen firearms, prevent children from accessing firearms, prohibit the sale of assault weapons, prohibit ghost guns, and implement a one-handgun-a-month policy.
Ill-fated bills have proposed measures including assault weapons bans, expanded background checks, and firearm sales restrictions for people on federal terrorism watch lists.
Several federal and state firearm bills could significantly affect gun owners in 2026. From permit-to-purchase requirements and assault weapon bans to extreme risk protection orders.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Ban the sale, manufacture, and possession of all assault weapons, with mandatory buybacks for existing owners.
Ban the future sale and manufacture of assault weapons while allowing current owners to keep their firearms.
Restrict assault weapons to licensed dealers with enhanced background checks, but stop short of a full ban.
Leave assault weapon regulation entirely to individual states rather than enact a federal ban.
Oppose any federal restrictions on assault weapons as an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights.