Cutberto Viramontes v. Cook County

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued November 12, 2024
Decided June 2, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1437
CUTBERTO VIRAMONTES, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COOK COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 21 CV 4595
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Judge.
O R D E R
Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, together with the Firearms Policy
Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, appeal the dismissal of their
constitutional challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban. Relying on District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v.
Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), they argue that the ordinance is facially invalid under the
Second Amendment.
We addressed a similar challenge to the ordinance in a case that was before us on
appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. Bevis v. City of Naperville, 85 F.4th
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-1437 Page 2
1175, 1185 (7th Cir. 2023). We rejected the challenge based on the record the plaintiffs
had compiled at that early stage of the litigation. Id. at 1197. The challengers here have
failed to develop a record sufficient to justify a different result. We therefore affirm.
Cook County’s ordinance prohibits the possession, acquisition, and transfer of
assault weapons. C OOK C OUNTY , I LL. C ODE § 54-212(a) (2024). The law applies to a
variety of firearms, including semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting large-capacity
magazines and possessing certain features. Id. § 54-211(1). The ordinance also specifies
by name some 125 prohibited rifles, such as AR-15s. Id. § 54-211(7). Viramontes and the
other plaintiffs (we’ll refer to them collectively as “Viramontes”) initiated this suit in
2021 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the ban as it relates to semiautomatic
rifles.
This is not our first encounter with Cook County’s ban and others like it. In Bevis
we addressed a set of consolidated appeals in cases challenging Illinois state and local
assault-weapons bans under Bruen—including the Cook County ordinance at issue
here. Bevis, 85 F.4th at 1184–87. We held that the plaintiffs had failed to show, at the
preliminary-injunction stage, that the covered firearms materially differed from
machineguns and military-grade weaponry, which the Supreme Court instructed can be
banned under the Second Amendment. Id. at 1194–97, 1203.
This suit predated Bruen and our decision in Bevis, but Viramontes conceded
from the outset that his claims were foreclosed by pre-Bruen circuit precedent—namely
Wilson v. Cook County, 937 F.3d 1028, 1029 (7th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), and Friedman v.
City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). Viramontes sought judgment on the
pleadings in favor of the County, asserting that no factual development was necessary.
The district judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court decided Bruen a few months
later, and in response the judge extended discovery.
Over the following months, while the County retained expert witnesses and
obtained reports to support its view of the Second Amendment’s scope, Viramontes
declined to do the same. Both sides then moved for summary judgment after the close
of discovery. In response to the County’s statement of undisputed material facts,
Viramontes submitted 105 exhibits, ranging from articles to surveys, in an apparent
attempt to supplement the record that he had previously elected not to build. The judge
entered judgment for the County, expressing concern about the admissibility of
Viramontes’s eleventh-hour submissions and concluding that his claims were
foreclosed by Bevis.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1437 Page 3
Viramontes appealed, but his challenge falters for want of an adequate record.
Bruen instructs that Second Amendment litigation adheres to the “principle of party
presentation,” explaining that courts may evaluate claims “based on the historical
record compiled by the parties.” 597 U.S. at 25 n.6 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We held in Bevis that it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the text of the
Second Amendment, viewed through the lens of historical tradition, protects the
regulated conduct. 85 F.4th at 1192, 1194.
Viramontes principally argues that we should overrule Bevis as inconsistent with
Heller and Bruen. We require a compelling reason to revisit our precedent. United States
v. Rivers, 108 F.4th 973, 979 (7th Cir. 2024). In the past we have identified three
circumstances that satisfy this standard: (1) when a subsequent Supreme Court opinion
has undermined our precedent; (2) when our own caselaw is internally inconsistent;
and (3) when we find ourselves in the minority among circuits to have considered the
issue. Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907, 915 (7th Cir. 2009).
Viramontes invokes none of these reasons and instead simply disagrees with
Bevis. But “[n]either simple disagreement with a rule nor the possibility that a rule is
debatable constitutes a compelling reason” for reconsidering precedent. Rivers, 108
F.4th at 979. Although Bevis was resolved at the preliminary-injunction stage,
Viramontes has not developed the arguments or record necessary to justify overruling
it. See United States v. Rush, 130 F.4th 633, 639–40 (7th Cir. 2025) (noting that “[n]o
intervening Supreme Court case has called Bevis into doubt” and declining to overturn
it based on the arguments advanced by the challenger). Viramontes’s fallback
position—that the Cook County ordinance is unconstitutional under Bevis—fares no
better. Bevis upheld the constitutionality of this very ordinance, at least preliminarily. 85
F.4th at 1182. Though it left open the possibility that a better-developed record might
affect the final analysis, id. at 1197, Viramontes’s failure to build an adequate record
here dooms his challenge.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --