Anti-Semi-Auto Jurisdictions Cite Weapons You Never Heard Of To Justify Gun Bans

Two jurisdictions defending bans on modern semiautomatic firearms cited centuries-old prohibitions on obscure weapons to justify the measures in briefs filed Wednesday with the Supreme Court.

The justices agreed on June 30 to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a Second Amendment challenge to the Illinois locality’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, consolidating the case with Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to a similar law passed in Connecticut after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In briefs filed Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County cited prohibitions on launcegays and slungshots to support keeping the AR-15 and similar firearms illegal.

“Launcegays were eventually banned following their use in a series of well-publicized murders and their ‘responsib[ility] for fatalities’ in numerous ‘personal quarrels, brawls, and street fighting,’” Connecticut argued in its brief. “In a 1441 dispute involving officers of the archbishop of York, ‘[s]everal men were killed and wounded with [launcegays] used by both sides.’”

“At common law, English Parliament enacted outright bans on dangerous weapons including the launcegay,” Cook County asserted. “The early colonies followed suit with prohibitions on indiscriminate killing that could be accomplished by trap guns or with armed assemblies. During the Reconstruction era, bans on Bowie knives and slungshots were enacted to protect the public from their exceptional lethality.”

Launcegays were light lances that were ubiquitous among military forces in medieval times, according to Cambridge University. Slungshots were weights of metal (usually lead) attacked to flexible handles or even just a cord, and were used as impact weapons, according to the Schwarz Cohen Law Firm.

“While the arguments levied in support of the assault weapons bans we’ve challenged in these cases lack legal support, they weren’t unforeseen,” Second Amendment Foundation Senior Director of Litigation William Sack told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “What we saw from the opposition briefs was more of the same ill-conceived arguments that were adopted at least in part by the Second and Seventh Circuits.”

“Since SCOTUS has already made clear that arms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment, the defendants here are left to argue that either these rifles – owned by the millions – aren’t commonly owned by law-abiding Americans, or that the Supreme Court’s test itself is flawed,” Sack continued. “We look forward to responding in our reply.”

Connecticut and Cook County argued that launcegays and slungshots, along with crossbows and Bowie knives, were among weapons historically banned due to their lethality and for being “dangerous.” The jurisdictions also argued that the AR-15 represented a technological advance that warranted being accounted for.

“The danger is acute because the AR15 platform has effectively collapsed the destructive power of an armed battalion into a single pair of hands, making this weapon the equivalent of an armed assembly,” Cook County argued. “Significantly, Cook County has chosen to ban an unusually dangerous platform of weapons while leaving other arms available for lawful self-defense— including ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns.”