Amicus brief urges Supreme Court to rethink Heller before AR-15 ruling

The American Enlightenment Project has asked the Supreme Court to revisit District of Columbia v. Heller before applying it to AR-15–type weapons in an upcoming gun case. The brief argues Heller rested on flawed historical assumptions and should not control without supplemental briefing.

Why it matters: - The brief targets a core Supreme Court precedent that has shaped modern gun-rights doctrine. - A ruling to rebrief or reconsider Heller could narrow how lower courts evaluate bans and restrictions on AR-15–type weapons. - The filing lands just before Dec. 2 arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, Nos. 25-238 and 25-566.

What happened: - The American Enlightenment Project filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that District of Columbia v. Heller rests on unsupported historical speculation. - The brief says the Court should not extend Heller to AR-15–type weapons without rebriefing and reconsideration. - The filing says Heller recognized a broad constitutional right to firearms without addressing the Second Amendment’s legal context, antecedents, purpose, origins or full text. - Before Heller, the prevailing judicial view was that the Second Amendment protected the states’ authority to maintain militias rather than a private right to possess firearms.

The details: - The brief argues that Heller’s premise — that the Second Amendment’s “central component” was an “ancient” English right of armed self-defense — was incorrect. - The filing says there was no such ancient right and that “keep and bear Arms” historically referred to public duties under Anglo-American militia law. - The brief points to the Assize of Arms of 1181 as an early example of that militia-based usage. - The brief says the Court and the parties in Heller did not address the two terms James Madison added: “security” and “shall not be infringed.” - The filing argues those words show the amendment’s purpose was to preserve the states’ sovereign right to maintain militias as security against federal encroachment. - The brief says Justice Stevens identified that federalism safeguard and that the idea was widely recognized in the 20th century. - The filing argues Heller ignored the militia system that generated the amendment’s language, including rules for arms, readiness, muster, service and discipline. - The brief says Heller presented a false choice between an individual right tied to militia service and an individual right tied to private self-defense. - The filing argues Heller left the amendment’s operative language unconstrued and should have no controlling effect, or at minimum should not be extended, without rebriefing. - The American Enlightenment Project asks the Court to order supplemental briefing on Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Bruen-era question of whether Heller “was rightly decided.” - The brief asks the Court to reconsider Heller and refuse to extend it to AR-15–type weapons unless that review happens first. - The filing says the Court used a similar approach in a 2025 National Guard case, ordering rebriefing after an amicus brief showed both parties had misread a militia statute.

Between the lines: - The brief is trying to move the fight from modern gun policy back to constitutional history and text. - If the Court accepts the argument, the dispute would shift from whether AR-15 bans fit existing precedent to whether Heller deserves continued precedential weight at all. - The filing also tries to frame rebriefing as a familiar judicial tool rather than a dramatic break from precedent.

What's next: - The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County on Dec. 2. - The brief urges the justices to order supplemental briefing before they decide whether Heller applies to AR-15–type weapons. - The American Enlightenment Project says the full amicus brief is available online: Read the amicus brief