Why the assault weapons debate is a culture debate

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals of two lower court rulings that challenged assault weapons restrictions. The high court will decide whether the Second and 14th amendments protect the right to possess semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. This marks a reversal for the court, which for years has declined to consider such challenges.

Two lower court rulings followed the Supreme Court announcement. On July 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld Illinois’ assault weapons ban. And on July 17, the 33rd Circuit struck down New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, making it the first federal appeals court to so rule.

Some analysts suggested that these decisions had an eye on the Supreme Court’s fall review.

As a gun policy scholar, I believe this flurry of legal activity brings to a head the multi-decade dispute over restricting assault weapons that extends far beyond legal arguments. The source of the conflict ranges from elements of gun culture identity to the technical characteristics of these weapons. Much of this controversy remains misunderstood, including conflicting claims about the weapons’ origins and definition.

Where the court ultimately stands will have to do with its answers to these tough questions. Is an assault weapon a weapon of war or a sporting rifle? Is it a machine gun or simply a tricked-out hunting rifle? Does it really pose a risk to the public compared to other guns?

Assault-style weapons – particularly the AR-15 – date to the late 1950s, when they emerged as a next-generation battlefield weapon.

According to Jim Sullivan, one of the AR-15’s designers, the weapon was “designed for full automatic military use. It wasn’t really designed as a sporting rifle.” The U.S. military adopted the weapon during the Vietnam War and designated it as the M16. The gun could fire in automatic or semi-automatic fashion.

As military demand for the M16 declined, a semi-automatic version, the AR-15, was sold to the domestic civilian market. But consumers took little interest until the late 1980s, when cheap imports began to flood the market.

Then in 1989, an assailant attacked an elementary school in Stockton, California, using an assault rifle to kill five people and wound 29, prompting public outcry and calls to restrict such weapons. Other mass shootings in Killeen, Texas, in 1991 and San Francisco in 1993 followed.

Outrage over these shootings led Congress to pass the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a 10-year ban on specific types of assault weapons. But the ban lapsed in 2004 because the law included a sunset provision. Repeated efforts to resurrect it have failed.

Today, 15 states have enacted assault weapons restrictions. Most of these laws ban their manufacture, sale or transfer.

Opponents of these laws note that the weapons available to civilians fire only in semi-automatic mode, making them functionally no different from traditional semi-automatic hunting rifles.

However, even in semi-automatic firing mode, the assault weapon is destructive and usually retains other military features. Battlefield experience has found that semi-automatic firing – a single round for each pull of the trigger – is often more effective, as it improved targeting and wasted less ammunition.

It’s also worth noting that the term “assault weapon” predates 1989 and the era of mass shootings. Gun manufacturers used the term before the 1980s, when the rifle’s military provenance was a major selling point.

Opponents of these restrictions argue that assault weapons have become the nation’s highest-selling guns, with sales increasing after the federal assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004.

Much of this market has been driven by politics. Assault weapons buyers increasingly view such purchases as a way to make a political statement – to register their objection to gun regulations. The gun industry refers to these purchases as “political sales.”

Supporters of assault weapons restrictions propose a different calculus: These weapons represent a small percentage of the total number of guns in the country while accounting for an inordinate number of mass shooting casualties. There are no precise counts of assault weapons, but if a 2022 estimate of 20 million is divided by a total of some 400 million guns in the U.S., assault weapons represent only about 5% of them.

Opponents of assault weapons restrictions are correct in pointing out that such weapons are rarely used in crimes committed with guns. Indeed, nearly 80% of those weapons are handguns.

On the other hand, assault weapons pose three specific safety threats.

First, they are increasingly the gun of choice for mass shooters. Handguns are used in roughly two-thirds of all mass shootings, but assault weapons are appearing with increasing frequency – nearly 40% of these events in the past decade.

Moreover, they result in greater harm. That’s because of their ability to use large-capacity ammunition magazines, which can hold up to 100 rounds. And their muzzle velocity – the speed at which the bullet leaves the barrel – means rounds travel farther and cause more harm.

A 2019 study of public mass shootings found that over 85% of fatalities from those incidents were from assault rifles. And in the past 10 years, the 10 highest-casualty mass shootings were committed with assault weapons.

Second, assault weapons are disproportionately more likely to be used in the shooting of a police officer.

Third, they are increasingly guns of choice for gang-style violence and extremist political groups.

When the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons cases this fall, it will apply its history standard to determine whether assault weapons restrictions are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

As I mention in my book, if the history of weapons regulation shows anything, it is that weapons deemed dangerous by the public and state and local governments or otherwise incompatible with civilian use have been widely restricted. That includes everything from Bowie knives and certain types of clubs to the notorious Tommy gun of the 1920s.

Despite this extensive regulatory past, experts generally expect that the court will strike down assault weapons restrictions. If so, it will be hard-pressed to justify the result as consistent with America’s extensive history of weapons regulation.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Robert Spitzer, State University of New York Cortland

Robert Spitzer is a member of the National Rifle Association and of Brady United Against Gun Violence