Earlier this month, Virginia Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger added the Old Dominion to the list of states taking square aim at the Second Amendment by signing a so-called “assault weapons” ban into law. The move was met with immediate legal challenges from pro-Second Amendment groups and even a promise from the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, Harmeet Dhillon, that she will “see you in court!”
Days later, Spanberger herself unintentionally aided those challenges by admitting that the law she just signed bans guns “frequently used for hunting.” In fact, the law applies to vast swaths of firearms that can hardly be considered “weapons of war” as Democrats claim, including many pistols commonly owned for home defense.
But given the state of play in other Democrat-controlled states throughout the country, one can forgive Spanberger for thinking that she can get away with such a blatantly unconstitutional gun grab. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that such bans, like the one Spanberger just signed, violate the Second Amendment in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, liberal states continue to flout that ruling and unlawfully infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights.
The Heller decision specifically established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms separate from service in a militia. At issue in that case was Washington, D.C.’s, handgun ban and storage requirements, which the justices ruled violated the Constitution.
In drafting the opinion for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” In addition, the justices held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Subsequent Supreme Court rulings – such as McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) – expanded on Heller and added other significant legal tests that the government must satisfy in the creation of laws governing the possession of firearms.
But despite all of this, activist anti-gun governments throughout the nation have worked overtime to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, unflinchingly ramming through slates of gun control laws that brazenly disregard the Supreme Court’s authority. In the decades since Heller, multiple states, including Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and now Virginia – have outlawed entire types, brands, and classes of firearms and components. State legislatures have turned law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners into felons overnight via legislation, ignoring the Constitution and blatantly defying the Supreme Court.
At the crux of all of these laws – particularly those banning certain guns and components – is the issue of “common use.” Remember, one of the key parts of the Heller ruling concerns what types of firearms are protected under the Second Amendment – specifically, those which are “in common use” and which are not both “dangerous” and “unusual.”
Also, recall that the ruling struck down D.C.’s handgun ban because handguns are not only “in common use,” but also are not “dangerous” and “unusual.”
With that in mind, if the legal test set in Heller is that protected arms are those “in common use,” then why can any of these states legally restrict the sale, transfer, ownership, or use of any of these firearms? Well, if we are to follow what the Court has ruled, the plain answer is: they can’t.
It then becomes imperative to determine what guns might be considered “in common use.” Even a cursory examination of the data reveals that there are numerous guns in America, across classes, actions, and types, that are astoundingly ubiquitous.
The Remington 870 shotgun, for instance, produced for over a half-century, is most certainly “in common use” – more than 11 million have been made. As is the Mossberg 500, with 12 million built. With over seven million produced, the Winchester Model 1894 is another highly common firearm in America. The Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle has sold seven million units.
The most produced handgun of the 20th century was the Smith & Wesson Model 10, with six million manufactured. Glock pistols – now banned in California – also rank high on the “in common use” list with over 20 million made since the early 1980s. One wonders how many 1911 semi-auto pistols have been produced over the last 115 years; it is almost certainly in the multiple millions.
But far and away, the AR-15 and its variants constitute the most commonly owned gun in America today – and everyone knows it. Even Justice Elena Kagan, writing the opinion for the Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos decision in 2025, recognized that the “AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” There are literally tens of millions of them in private hands.
Precise numbers are difficult to discern, but the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently estimated there could be as many as 32 million modern sporting rifles in circulation today. In all likelihood, the real number is much higher, given the existence of everything from legal private sales that don’t use official Federal Firearms License transfer information to hobbyist-built gun kits.
In short, the number of AR-15s owned and used by American citizens is so high that the AR-15 can be considered the very definition of “in common use.” Yet still, the AR-15 is the #1 target of virtually every gun ban.
So, what gives? Why are these firearms – which are clearly in common use, and clearly not unusual because they are common – targeted by the feverish anti-gun lobby and their allies in office? Why have so many states enacted laws that effectively deny citizens the right to own what the Supreme Court has said they have a constitutional right to own?
Unfortunately, like so many historical examples of how those in power use their power, anti-gun legislatures and governors are simply doing what they think they can get away with – precedent, opinions, rulings, and the Constitution itself be damned.
What is most frustrating for gun owners and anyone who believes in the Second Amendment is that all of this has been allowed to happen for so long without any real pushback. In the Snope v. Brown case, which looked at Maryland’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms including the AR-15 – and which the Supreme Court declined to hear in 2025 – Justice Kavanaugh wrote following the denial that, “Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly, and in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”
Americans who care about the Second Amendment can only hope that enough justices “in the next term or two” will finally decide they have had enough of shameless state governments ignoring the highest court in the land.
Aside from the particulars regarding how the Supreme Court decides which cases it will take, the simple fact is that enough logic and reason exist in the Heller decision under the “in common use” test to strike down these unconstitutional state laws that ban the ownership of certain firearms, accessories, and components. At the same time, there are enough commonly owned firearms and enough Americans whose liberties are restricted by these laws to challenge these bans with the reality of legal gun ownership in the country. It is really no simpler or more complicated than that.
Connor Martin is a U.S. Marine and covers national policy issues.
