Gun Rights Group Asks Supreme Court To Keep Blue County From Dodging Semi-Auto Gun Showdown

A pro-Second Amendment group asked the Supreme Court Wednesday not to declare a case challenging an Illinois county’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms moot.

Cook County, Illinois, asked the Supreme Court Nov. 5 to drop a Second Amendment case involving the area’s semiautomatic gun ban after Cutberto Viramontes filed paperwork seeking to be dropped from Viramontes v. Cook County, which the justices had agreed to hear on June 30. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) told the justices in their Wednesday response that the case still had another plaintiff, Christopher Khaya, who wanted to buy an AR-15-style rifle.

“If anything is ‘similar’ to an AR-15, an AK-47style rifle such as the IMI Galil sought by Petitioner Khaya would qualify,” SAF told the high court. “Indeed, Cook County’s own ordinance groups these rifles together by name and features, classifies them as so-called ‘assault weapons,’ and bans them. The County has not contested any of this until now—and in fact has in its briefing defined the AK-47 as an ‘AR-15 platform weapon[ ].’ It has accordingly waived, or at least forfeited, any argument that the AK-47-based Galil falls outside the question presented.”

The Galil assault rifle was originally entered in a competition for a new service weapon for the Israeli Defense Forces and was based off the Finnish M60 rifle, a modified Kalashnikov chambered in 5.56mm NATO, according to WeaponsFactory.com. It comes with standard 25, 35 or 50-round magazines and has an effective range of 600 yards.

SAF’s brief also included declarations from Khaya and another Illinois resident, Ed Smolen, stating their interests in buying or possessing AR-15-style rifles. While Khaya indicated that he was seeking to purchase an AR-15 in addition to the civilian version of the Galil, Smolen said he owned an AR-15, but had to store it in another state due to the Cook County law.

“I have owned an AR-15 platform semiautomatic rifle since 2011 but keep it out of state,” Smolen said in his declaration. “If it were lawful to do so, I would possess my AR-15 at my residence in Cook County for lawful purposes including self-defense.”

When the justices agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, they consolidated the case with Grant v. Higgins, a similar case challenging Connecticut’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, including the AR-15. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec. 2 and is expected to issue its decision on the case in summer 2027.