New Supreme Court Brief Says Heller Rests on Unsupported Speculation—and Urges Rebriefing Before Its Extension to AR-15s

American Enlightenment Project’s Amicus Brief Comes Just Ahead of Dec. 2 Arguments in the Next Blockbuster Gun Case, Viramontes v. Cook Cty, Nos. 25-238, 25-566

WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES, October 30, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The American Enlightenment Project has filed a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that District of Columbia v. Heller rests on unsupported historical speculation and should not be extended to AR-15–type weapons without rebriefing and reconsideration.

The filing makes a threshold claim with immediate consequences for gun regulation: that Heller recognized a broad constitutional right to firearms—contributing to today’s gun-violence epidemic—without addressing the Second Amendment’s legal context, actual antecedents, purpose, origins, or full text. Before Heller, the prevailing judicial understanding was that the Amendment protected the States’ authority to maintain militias, rather than a private right to possess firearms.

According to the brief, Heller’s entire premise—that the Amendment’ “central component” was an “ancient” English right of armed self-defense—rested on speculation and was wrong. There was no such ancient right. Heller and the parties overlooked that “keep and bear Arms” had long described public duties under Anglo-American militia law, dating to at least the Assize of Arms of 1181, not private rights.

Nor did the parties or the Court address the two terms James Madison added, substituting “security” for “defence of a free State” and adding “shall not be infringed,” the constitutional command. The brief argues that these terms clarify the Amendment’s specific purpose: restoring the States’ express sovereign right to maintain militias as security against federal encroachment. Justice Stevens identified that federalism safeguard, and it was widely recognized in the twentieth century, but never established from the Amendment’s text and legal history. The brief supplies that proof.

The filing contends that both sides in Heller presented a false choice between two versions of an individual right: one associated with militia service and the other with private self-defense. Focused on criminal law, neither addressed the militia system from which the Amendment’s words came: the body of law organizing militia and prescribing citizens’ arms, readiness, muster, service, and discipline.

That false choice, the brief argues, constitutionalized broad private firearms possession while leaving the Amendment’s operative language unconstrued. Because Heller never construed the full text, or the Amendment as a whole, the brief argues, it should have no controlling effect—or, at minimum, should not be extended—without rebriefing and reconsideration.

The brief asks the Court to follow a recent model. In a 2025 National Guard case, the Court ordered rebriefing after a single amicus brief showed that both parties had misread a militia statute, then corrected course before precedent could distort military authority to send troops into American cities. The Project urges a similar course correction before Heller is extended to another category of firearms.

The filing highlights Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s question during argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: whether Heller “was rightly decided.” It asks the Court to order supplemental briefing on that question, reconsider Heller, and decline to extend it to AR-15–type weapons unless and until that review occurs.

The American Enlightenment Project brief is available here: Read the amicus brief

Robert W. Ludwig
Ludwig & Robinson PLLC
+1 202-289-7603
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Bluesky
X