The Second Amendment is once again on trial — not in Hartford, not in Albany, but in Washington D.C.
On October 3, 2025, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review NAGR v. Lamont, the constitutional challenge to Connecticut’s sweeping bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines.
If the Justices take the case, it could become the most consequential Second Amendment battle since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022).
A Defiant Lower Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Connecticut’s ban, admitting that AR-15-style rifles are in “common use” yet claiming the state may outlaw them anyway.
That logic stands the Heller and Bruen decisions on their head.
In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that firearms “in common use for lawful purposes” are protected arms.
In Bruen, the Court warned judges they could no longer balance away the Second Amendment with vague appeals to “public safety.”
The Second Circuit simply refused to comply — a move so brazen it effectively challenges the Supreme Court to enforce its own precedents.
What a Victory Would Mean
If the Court grants review and rules for NAGR, the impact would be enormous.
- AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines would be confirmed as protected arms — not “military-style weapons,” but the most common rifles in America.
- State-level bans in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut would crumble overnight.
- The decision would restore clarity to Second Amendment jurisprudence and stop lower courts from “balancing” away rights that the Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”
It would mark the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court directly addressed which classes of firearms Americans are constitutionally entitled to own — an opinion destined to shape gun rights for decades.
What a Loss Would Mean
But the risk is just as great.
If the Court declines review — or worse, upholds the ban — it would hand blue-state governments a green light to outlaw entire categories of firearms under the guise of “public safety.”
That would shred the “common-use” test and embolden activist judges to chip away at every other component of the Second Amendment, from magazines to suppressors to semi-automatics themselves.
Such a loss wouldn’t merely wound the right to keep and bear arms; it would redefine it as a privilege controlled by whichever party happens to hold power.
The Next Landmark Case
Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently suggested the Court “will likely address the AR-15 issue soon.”
NAGR v. Lamont is that vehicle. It presents a clean, direct question: Can the government ban a class of arms in common use by law-abiding citizens?
A clear ruling in favor of NAGR would not only reaffirm Heller and Bruen — it would lock in the principle that constitutional rights don’t depend on a politician’s approval or a judge’s social preferences.
Texas Gun Rights Supports NAGR Lawsuit
Texas Gun Rights proudly supports NAGR’s effort and is preparing an amicus brief urging the Court to restore consistency to Second Amendment law nationwide.
TXGR President Chris McNutt put it bluntly:
“If the Supreme Court allows this kind of defiance to stand, the Second Amendment becomes a dead letter. Texans know what’s at stake — when the courts start deciding which guns the people are ‘allowed’ to have, it’s only a matter of time before they decide you shouldn’t have any at all.”
If the Court gets it right, it will reaffirm that the Constitution, not political fashion, defines our liberties.
If it gets it wrong, millions of Americans will learn the hard way that rights unguarded are rights lost.
Either way, history will remember this case as a turning point — the moment the Supreme Court chose whether to stand with the people or with those who would disarm them.
