Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over AR-15 Rifle, How Will Ohio Be Impacted?
BY JEFF SKINNER
STATEWIDE - A looming Supreme Court battle may have larger implications across the state of Ohio as arguments are underway for Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which challenges restrictions enacted in Illinois and Connecticut, cases which could impact gun owners in Ohio through established precedent.
The highest court is scheduled to hear consolidated oral arguments in December to decide whether state and local prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, challenge restrictions enacted in Illinois and Connecticut. While the laws being scrutinized are hundreds of miles away, the final ruling will reshape the legal boundaries of gun ownership and local governance across Ohio.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost joined a 27-state coalition in filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the bans. In the filings, the coalition argues that AR-15-style rifles are in "common use" across the country, with millions in circulation, making them constitutionally protected under previous Supreme Court precedents.
For Ohioans, the most immediate consequence of the court's decision in this case will center on municipal power. Ohio law currently includes a "preemption" statute designed to ensure firearm regulations are uniform across the state. The law prevents cities from enacting gun control measures that are stricter than state law. However, more 'progressive' cities like Columbus and Cincinnati have repeatedly tested those limits, attempting to pass local ordinances targeting magazine capacities and firearm storage.
If the Supreme Court rules that AR-15 restrictions are unconstitutional, it will create a permanent federal shield through precedent against local bans. Any future attempts by Ohio cities to restrict semiautomatic rifles or accompanying high-capacity magazines could be void from the start.
However, if the court upholds the bans in Illinois and Connecticut, the ruling would not automatically change Ohio law. The state's Republican-led supermajority in the General Assembly is highly unlikely to pursue statewide restrictions on semiautomatic firearms. That said, an upholding of the bans could embolden local city councils to challenge Ohio’s preemption law, opening the door for a patchwork of local firearm ordinances in urban areas.
The federal ruling could also shift the momentum of gun legislation currently stalling or circulating in Columbus. Gun rights advocacy organizations, including Ohio Gun Owners, have spent recent legislative sessions lobbying for Second Amendment "sanctuary" protections. These measures aim to block state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies to enforce potential federal restrictions on semiautomatic rifles.
A Supreme Court ruling that firmly places AR-15s under constitutional protection would effectively eliminate the threat of a sweeping federal ban. Legal experts say such a decision would likely deflate the push for sanctuary legislation in Ohio, as the federal restrictions lawmakers fear would be legally impossible to implement.The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final ruling by June 2027, a decision that will either cement Ohio's expansive gun rights into federal law or ignite a new wave of local legal battles across the Buckeye State.
