Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons” today filed a 16-page brief supporting their earlier motion to summary judgment in the case, which is known as Viramontes v. Cook County.

The case is being adjudicated in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It was originally filed in August 2021. Joining SAF in this case is the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. They are Rubi Joyal, Christopher Khaya and Cutberto Viramontes, after whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom, all of Cooper & Kirk in Washington, DC.

According to today’s response brief, “In trying to justify its ban on common semiautomatic rifles, the County proposes an erroneous analysis for this case, conflating the textual and historical investigations required by Bruen and then proposes to justify its ban in comparison to the historical fire safety. regulations governing the storage of gunpowder.

“Cook County seems intent on obfuscating this case by making arguments that don’t pass the constitutional sniff test,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The county maintains that the AR-15 and similar firearms are not appropriate for self-defense, which is just plain silly. It is not up to the county to determine what types of firearms are appropriate for personal protection. That’s for the citizens to decide.”

“The county’s arguments for why the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban should be upheld do not meet their charge,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “None of the arguments put forth in support of the ban demonstrate any consistency with the history and tradition of this nation. We look forward to vindicating the rights of our plaintiffs in this and many other cases on this issue.”

“It appears the county is making specious arguments simply to prolong this case,” Gottlieb suggested, “and delay the foregone conclusion that the ban is unconstitutional.”