National Association for Gun Rights, et al., Petitioners v. Ned Lamont, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Connecticut, et al.

Gun-rights groups are asking the Supreme Court to review Connecticut's ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. They argue that these items are commonly owned for lawful purposes and protected by the Second Amendment.

The Court has not scheduled oral argument. The petitioners say the Second Circuit wrongly concluded that common lawful possession does not necessarily place the firearms and magazines within Second Amendment protection.

““Even assuming arguendo that the desired firearms and magazines are ‘typically possessed’ and ‘in common use’ for lawful purposes, we disagree [that they are necessarily protected by the Second Amendment.]””

The case could affect Connecticut residents who own or want to own the covered rifles or larger-capacity magazines. It also could shape how courts assess firearm bans involving weapons and magazines used by millions of Americans.

The case concerns Connecticut's ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The central question is whether magazines are protected “Arms” under the Second Amendment.

Connecticut residents who possess or want to possess covered rifles or magazines could be affected. The case could also influence similar Second Amendment disputes.

The Court could schedule oral argument or make another scheduling move. No date for a decision is available yet.