The plaintiffs in the Viramontes case have now replied to Cook County's suggestion to SCOTUS that the challenge to the county's "assault weapon" prohibition is moot since the main plaintiff wants to drop out of the case. I doubt that a majority of the justices are leaning in favor of adopting the county's argument, but after reading what the plaintiffs have to say there should be no question about the case moving forward with or without the continued involvement of Cutberto Viramontes.
Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke has argued that if Mr. Viramontes does drop out of the litigation, the other individual plaintiff and the organizations suing over the ordinance don't have standing continue the lawsuit. In her view, Christopher Khaya's declaration that he wants to purchase a gun based off of the AK-47 and not the AR-15 platform renders his challenge moot because the Supreme Court has agreed to answer "whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
Burke also contends that there's no proof any members of the organizational plaintiffs (Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition) other than Viramontes himself would like to purchase an AR-15, so those groups don't have standing either.
It's a weak and weird argument to begin with, and the plaintiffs' reply easily refutes Burke's position.
Respondent Cook County’s suggestion of mootness is phrased in jurisdictional terms, but it is really an argument about the scope of the question presented. Is the question limited to whether the Constitution protects the right to possess AR-15 platform rifles? Or does it reach other, similar semiautomatic rifles as well? Its plain terms show it is the latter: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
If anything is “similar” to an AR-15, an AK-47-style rifle such as the IMI Galil sought by Petitioner Khaya would qualify. Indeed, Cook County’s own ordinance groups these rifles together by name and features, classifies them as so-called “assault weapons,” and bans them. The County has not contested any of this until now—and in fact has in its briefing defined the AK-47 as an “AR-15 platform weapon[ ].” It has accordingly waived, or at least forfeited, any argument that the AK-47-based Galil falls outside the question presented.
That might be the biggest dunk on a Chicagoan since John Starks's baseline jam over Michael Jordan in the 1993 Eastern Conference finals.
Burke herself has said the AK-47 is an AR-15 platform weapon, but now she wants to have the case against Cook County dismissed outright because she suddenly believes they're very different. Apparently, the county's definition of an "assault weapon" depends on whether it's trying to ban one or defend that ban before the Supreme Court.
Come on, Eileen. That's not how this works.
To simplify the Court's decision even further, the plaintiffs included a new declaration from Christopher Khaya, where he explains that in addition to the IMI Gamil he would like to purchase, there may be other semiautomatic rifles he'd like to buy as well, including an AR-15. They also included a new declaration from Cook County resident (and FPC and SAF member) Ed Smolen, who attests that he's owned an AR-15 since 2011 but keeps it outside of Cook County because of the ban. "If it were lawful to do so," Smolen says, he would possess his AR-15 at his home in Cook County "for lawful purposes including self-defense."
Even if the Supreme Court were to dismiss the Viramontes case, the challenge to Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban would continue. But the plaintiffs have delivered a stinging rebuttal to Burke's assertion that Viramontes is moot if Mr. Viramontes himself isn't an active plaintiff, and at this point I think we have a better chance of seeing a 9-0 decision striking down these semi-auto bans than we do of SCOTUS siding with Cook County's position and voiding Viramontes for mootness.