The Founding Fathers made one thing perfectly clear: The Second Amendment isn't for hunting or even necessarily fighting off home invaders. It's about making sure this nation stays free for all eternity.

To do that, we're better off if we have the most capable weapons for just such a purpose. That includes things like the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons.

Yet a number of states have banned them to varying degrees, something that doesn't seem to sit well with the idea of originalism, to say the least, and when you consider the Bruen decision, it really doesn't sit well.

Illinois is one such state, and Gun Owners of America is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the ban.

Two gun owners advocacy groups have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Protect Illinois Communities Act, the statewide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines passed last year in response to the Highland Park shooting.

The Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation on Monday filed a petition asking the nation's highest court to overturn last year's appellate court ruling that left the law in place.

In their petition, the pro-gun groups argue that the Illinois law contradicts Supreme Court precedent by restricting access to guns in common use for lawful purposes.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual ownership of "military-grade" weapons.

But according to the gun owner advocates, the 7th Circuit's distinction improperly excludes commonly owned guns like the AR-15 from constitutional protection, since the Supreme Court has not included that limitation in its interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.

"But even accepting the majority’s contrived civilian-military distinction as the appropriate historical focus (it is not), Founding-era history clearly establishes a tradition contrary to the [appellate court] majority’s premise," the petitioners argued.

"Indeed, the Founders repeatedly sought to ensure the citizenry would be as well-equipped as the military," their petition continued. "Countless contemporaneous sources confirm the Second Amendment’s original meaning as guaranteeing armament parity between the citizen and government."

Exactly.

I'm partial to the idea that we should be able to buy our own A-10s if we've got the cash for one, so you're not going to see me disagree with this in the least.

Assault weapon bans, however, are always defended based on some bizarre idea that our Founding Fathers simply didn't know what they were talking about, that they couldn't possibly have meant these guns. There's absolutely no historical defense of this idea even remotely possible because we have numerous examples of the exact opposite.

If the Supreme Court takes up an assault weapon ban case, we know how it's going to go. Everyone knows how it's going to go. 

The question is whether the Court will take it up, and I'm with GOA on this. I think they need to take it up and settle the question once and for all. 

And I don't think anti-gunners will like the result of that.