Attorney General Tong Files Supreme Court Brief Defending Connecticut's Post-Sandy Hook AR-15 Ban

Press Releases

10/21/2026

Attorney General Tong Files Supreme Court Brief Defending Connecticut's Post-Sandy Hook AR-15 Ban

(Hartford, CT) - Attorney General William Tong today filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Grant v. Higgins, defending the constitutionality of Connecticut's post-Sandy Hook AR-15 ban.

"Connecticut's AR-15 ban is lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported. The facts and the law all point to an undeniable conclusion-AR-15s are unusually dangerous and excessively lethal, and Connecticut's ban is consistent with our nation's long history of regulating such weapons. Both the district court and the appellate court agreed that the law is fully constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold it. We are prepared for this fight, and we are going to give them everything we've got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families," said Attorney General Tong.

Connecticut updated its assault weapons ban, first enacted in 1993, in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where a gunman armed with an AR-15 style rifle murdered 20 children and six educators in under five minutes. The update specifically added the AR-15 and Bushmaster Model XM15 to the list of banned weapons, and updated the existing definition of prohibited "assault weapons" to ban any semiautomatic, centerfire rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with at least one of the following features: (1) a folding or telescoping stock, (2) any grip, such as a pistol grip, that allows the shooter to hold the weapon so that the trigger-finger hand is positioned below any portion of the firing action, (3) a forward pistol grip, (4) a flash suppressor, or (5) a grenade launcher or flare launcher.

Connecticut's brief argues that Connecticut's AR-15 ban is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation --the test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. Connecticut's ban is consistent with a long historical tradition of regulating weapons unusually capable of causing death and destruction. The brief extensively details that tradition by highlighting bans on unusually dangerous weapons from fourteenth-century England through to 21st century America.

The brief rebuts the petitioners' argument that legislatures are prohibited from regulating weaponry in "common use"-a flawed claim that defies history, precedent and logic. To the contrary, the brief spells out examples through history of governments banning excessively lethal weapons precisely because they had become so popular that they posed immediate dangers to society. The brief argues that prohibiting regulation of "common use" weaponry would create an illogical and unworkable "use-it-or-lose-it" view of legislative authority. This theory would penalize states for responsible deliberations, granting constitutional immunity to arms manufacturers who sell enough arms before the excessive lethality of those weapons becomes clear.

Historical tradition confirms that a legislature may restrict possession and use of unusually dangerous weapons that wreak excessive harm on the public, the brief states. There is no meaningful debate that AR-15s are unusually dangerous, and the brief provides detailed analysis of how their rate of fire, lack of recoil, and ability to accept after-market modifications and extended magazines enable unskilled shooters to rapidly inflict widespread damage from long distances. The brief further notes their disproportionate use in mass shootings and killings of law enforcement officers, and relatively rare use in incidents of self-defense.

In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the law, recognizing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "not unlimited." It further recognized that Connecticut's gun laws impose reasonable restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons "uniquely designed to create mayhem." The decision also found Connecticut's laws preserve numerous legal avenues for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and do not impair the core constitutional right to self-defense under the Second Amendment. The Court determined that Connecticut's laws are entirely consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations.

Oral argument on the case is scheduled before the Supreme Court for Wednesday, December 2. The court will also hear arguments at that time in Viramontes v. Cook County, which challenges a Cook County, Illinois assault weapons ordinance. The ban was originally enacted in 1993 and amended in 2013 to honor Blair Holt, a teenager who lost his life to gun violence while heroically shielding friends from gunfire that erupted on a CTA bus.

Attorney General Tong and Connecticut Solicitor General Michael Skold will be leading a highly experienced team in the Supreme Court. Connecticut will be represented at oral argument by Elizabeth Prelogar, 48th Solicitor General of the United States and partner at Cooley's Supreme Court and appellate practice group. As Solicitor General, Prelogar argued United States v. Rahimi, successfully defending the federal law prohibiting individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns.

Media Contact:

Elizabeth Benton
[email protected]

Consumer Inquiries:

860-808-5318
[email protected]

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Email
• Print