Supreme Court Brief Supporting Connecticut’s Semi-Auto Ban Argues Part Of Second Amendment Is ‘Extinct’
The first brief supporting Connecticut’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms was filed at the Supreme Court Monday, arguing that part of the Second Amendment was “extinct.”
Harold Hutchison · Oct 26, 2026 · 2 min read
The first brief supporting Connecticut’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms was filed at the Supreme Court Monday, arguing that part of the Second Amendment was “extinct.”
In briefs filed Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County cited prohibitions on obscure weapons like launcegays and slungshots while arguing the justices should allow their bans on so-called “assault weapons” to remain legal. Attorney David Alan Robinson, a specialist in employment law who lives in Connecticut, instead argued in the brief that the abolition of the draft ended the militia and made that part of the Second Amendment “extinct.”
“This Court should pronounce what is and is not extinct about the Second Amendment,” Robinson wrote. “I tried to start a movement to pass a constitutional amendment—the 28th Amendment—to pronounce what is and is not extinct about the Second but was unable to persuade a majority to agree on the wording of the 28th.”
“Based on my experience, this Court should not expect the American people to do so,” Robinson continued. “The Second Amendment is not extinct in toto but the prefatory clause (‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’) is extinct, so the operative clause (‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’) is extinct unless the right is inherent.”
Robinson also argued that Congress had the right to ban so-called “bump stocks” and to limit magazine capacity, comparing the latter to a speed limit for automobiles. Robinson also referred to a book he is hawking on Amazon for $4.99 (paperback) or $1.99 (Kindle) in which he proposed a “28th Amendment” to “clarify” the Second Amendment.
“In my book I come up with an analogy, which I will tell in the next section of this brief, that I believe proves that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments do not guarantee civilians the right to keep and bear semiautomatic rifles in common use in 2026 including the AR-15,” Robinson argued. “Many civilians have that right anyway and will continue to, regardless of the Court’s decision in this case, because many states give civilians that right. Those states, not the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, give them that right.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec. 2 and is expected to issue its decision on the case in summer 2027.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].