Analysis Finds Connecticut Misreads Medieval Law in AR-15 Ban Defense
Connecticut's legal defense of its AR-15 ban leans heavily on medieval English weapons law, and according to an analysis from The Reload, the state is getting that history wrong in ways that matter for the Supreme Court case ahead.
Snapshot
Connecticut filed its response brief in Grant v. Higgins, now consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County, citing English laws dating to the 1300s to justify its ban on unregistered AR-15s. The Reload's analysis argues these laws, read in full context, mostly restricted carrying weapons or targeted the poor and hunting, rather than banning home possession outright.
Key points
- Lancegays were legal to own: 1383 and 1396 laws cited by Connecticut only restricted riding armed with a lancegay, not possessing one at home; wills and court records show Englishmen owned and bequeathed them freely.
- Crossbow and handgun law targeted class, not danger: the 1542 Acte Concerning Crossbows and Handguns exempted the wealthy and was meant to preserve longbow readiness for national defense, not to curb especially dangerous weapons.
- Short-lived bans don't hold up: the 1613 handgun proclamation was narrowed within three years to cover only making, selling, or carrying, with later language calling the weapons useless for "defence" or "militarie practise."
- Game Act misreading: the 1671 Game Act's "gun" restriction targeted poachers, not pistols, and was dropped from the 1692 version; courts in Rex v. Gardner and Wingfield v. Stratford later ruled guns kept for self-defense weren't banned.
Quick take
The Reload's analysis makes a straightforward case: Connecticut is stretching centuries-old, narrowly scoped laws into a blanket historical justification they were never built to support. With oral arguments set for December 2026, how the Supreme Court weighs this kind of distant English precedent under Bruen could shape the outcome for every state assault weapons ban still standing.
Read the full story: thereload.com