Viramontes Update: Petitioners file response to mootness claim

On November 11, the petitioners in Viramontes v. Cook County filed their response to Cook County’s suggestion that the case should be dismissed after Cutberto Viramontes asked to withdraw. Their argument starts with the question the Supreme Court agreed to decide:

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The words “and similar semiautomatic rifles” matter. Christopher Khaya, who remains a petitioner, has long said he wants to possess a semiautomatic IMI Galil. Cook County’s ordinance lists the Galil by name among the firearms it bans. The ordinance also lists the AR-15, and the county grouped the two together in its own merits briefing. The petitioners argue that Khaya’s Galil claim alone keeps the case live because it falls within the question the Court agreed to hear.

Khaya also submitted a declaration saying he would acquire an AR-15 if he could lawfully possess one in Cook County. Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation identified another member, Ed Smolen, who lives in Cook County and keeps his AR-15 out of state. Smolen says he would keep it at his home if the law allowed it.

The Court has yet to rule on mootness. Oral argument in Viramontes and the consolidated Connecticut case, Grant v. Higgins, remains scheduled for December 2. Read the petitioners’ response · Supreme Court docket