![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-allow-communities-to-regulate-firearms-under-second-amendment-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-allow-local-commu.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.")
The Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not Americans are permitted to possess AR-15 rifles and similar firearms.
![Family learns hospice bed opened as father faced scheduled assisted suicide #Catholic As New Yorkʼs Medical Aid in Dying Act takes effect amid legal challenges, one Canadian woman is sharing her familyʼs experience with physician-assisted suicide, saying it convinced her that vulnerable patients need greater access to hospice and palliative care — not assisted death.Speaking with “EWTN News Nightly” in an Aug. 5 interview with anchor Veronica Dudo, Colleen De Vos recounted the final months of her father’s life. He died through Canadaʼs medical assistance in dying (MAID) program in 2023 at age 85 after being diagnosed with terminal chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“My father wasnʼt very forthcoming with his intentions, unfortunately,” De Vos said. “We did see some very fragile moments during the course of his illness.”As his condition worsened, De Vos said her family worked to arrange hospice or in-home palliative care, believing those services would provide the compassionate support he needed.“We were advocating very strongly for hospice care or at-home palliative program,” she said. “He seemed to agree with that.”But the familyʼs efforts were unsuccessful.“He was turned down on two occasions, deeming that his diagnosis wasnʼt enough to warrant hospice care,” De Vos said. “That was a surprise to us because we could see he was deteriorating very quickly.”Instead, she said, a nurse practitioner overseeing his care at home spoke privately with her father about pursuing MAID as his symptoms worsened.De Vos said the contrast between accessing hospice and obtaining assisted suicide was striking.“The irony of the availability of MAID that could be arranged very quickly … sidelined us very much,” she said.She recalled receiving “literally the cardboard box in the mail” containing the drugs and supplies needed for the procedure.“Obtaining [hospice care] was very difficult,” she said. “And this was very simple.”On the day her father was scheduled to die, De Vos said the family finally learned that a hospice bed had become available.She called it “very heartbreaking” that he declined the hospice bed.“I think he proceeded because of his loss of hope,” she said. “We absolutely were prepared to provide him with round-the-clock care.”Religious freedom challenge in New YorkDe Vos' story comes as Catholic ministries in New York are challenging the stateʼs new assisted suicide law in federal court.Speaking on Aug. 5 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Adele Keim, senior counsel at Becket Fund, said New Yorkʼs law differs significantly from those in states such as Oregon and Washington.“New York has created an opt-out law,” Keim said. “The presumption is youʼre in unless you opt out.”While some providers may decline to prescribe or administer the lethal drugs, Keim argued that Catholic ministries are still required to participate in other aspects of the process.“You canʼt opt out of your obligations to counsel patients about assisted suicide and the ‘benefits’ it would provide,” she said. Nor can Catholic providers refuse to refer patients elsewhere if they object to assisted suicide on religious grounds, she said.Keim said those requirements prompted the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and other Catholic ministries to seek relief in federal court.Hope, dignity, and the court’s decisionShe also spoke with hope in a federal judgeʼs decision to temporarily block New York from enforcing the law against the Catholic plaintiffs while the case proceeds.“The right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental right,” Keim said, noting that both the U.S. Supreme Court and New Yorkʼs highest court have ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. “But… there is a fundamental right to religious freedom.”According to Keim, the injunction ensures the state cannot enforce the law against the Catholic ministries while their constitutional claims are considered.The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide and euthanasia are gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person while encouraging compassionate palliative and hospice care that accompanies patients through natural death.De Vos said she hopes lawmakers instead “think about the sacred gift of life that we are given by God,” adding: “I donʼt believe that itʼs up to the lawmakers… to give someone the autonomy to end their life.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/family-learns-hospice-bed-opened-as-father-faced-scheduled-assisted-suicide-catholic-as-new-yorkcabcs-medical-aid-in-dying-act-takes-effect-amid-legal-challenges-one-canadian-woman-is-sharing-her.png "Family learns hospice bed opened as father faced scheduled assisted suicide #Catholic As New Yorkʼs Medical Aid in Dying Act takes effect amid legal challenges, one Canadian woman is sharing her familyʼs experience with physician-assisted suicide, saying it convinced her that vulnerable patients need greater access to hospice and palliative care — not assisted death.Speaking with “EWTN News Nightly” in an Aug. 5 interview with anchor Veronica Dudo, Colleen De Vos recounted the final months of her father’s life. He died through Canadaʼs medical assistance in dying (MAID) program in 2023 at age 85 after being diagnosed with terminal chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“My father wasnʼt very forthcoming with his intentions, unfortunately,” De Vos said. “We did see some very fragile moments during the course of his illness.”As his condition worsened, De Vos said her family worked to arrange hospice or in-home palliative care, believing those services would provide the compassionate support he needed.“We were advocating very strongly for hospice care or at-home palliative program,” she said. “He seemed to agree with that.”But the familyʼs efforts were unsuccessful.“He was turned down on two occasions, deeming that his diagnosis wasnʼt enough to warrant hospice care,” De Vos said. “That was a surprise to us because we could see he was deteriorating very quickly.”Instead, she said, a nurse practitioner overseeing his care at home spoke privately with her father about pursuing MAID as his symptoms worsened.De Vos said the contrast between accessing hospice and obtaining assisted suicide was striking.“The irony of the availability of MAID that could be arranged very quickly … sidelined us very much,” she said.She recalled receiving “literally the cardboard box in the mail” containing the drugs and supplies needed for the procedure.“Obtaining [hospice care] was very difficult,” she said. “And this was very simple.”On the day her father was scheduled to die, De Vos said the family finally learned that a hospice bed had become available.She called it “very heartbreaking” that he declined the hospice bed.“I think he proceeded because of his loss of hope,” she said. “We absolutely were prepared to provide him with round-the-clock care.”Religious freedom challenge in New YorkDe Vos' story comes as Catholic ministries in New York are challenging the stateʼs new assisted suicide law in federal court.Speaking on Aug. 5 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Adele Keim, senior counsel at Becket Fund, said New Yorkʼs law differs significantly from those in states such as Oregon and Washington.“New York has created an opt-out law,” Keim said. “The presumption is youʼre in unless you opt out.”While some providers may decline to prescribe or administer the lethal drugs, Keim argued that Catholic ministries are still required to participate in other aspects of the process.“You canʼt opt out of your obligations to counsel patients about assisted suicide and the ‘benefits’ it would provide,” she said. Nor can Catholic providers refuse to refer patients elsewhere if they object to assisted suicide on religious grounds, she said.Keim said those requirements prompted the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and other Catholic ministries to seek relief in federal court.Hope, dignity, and the court’s decisionShe also spoke with hope in a federal judgeʼs decision to temporarily block New York from enforcing the law against the Catholic plaintiffs while the case proceeds.“The right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental right,” Keim said, noting that both the U.S. Supreme Court and New Yorkʼs highest court have ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. “But… there is a fundamental right to religious freedom.”According to Keim, the injunction ensures the state cannot enforce the law against the Catholic ministries while their constitutional claims are considered.The Catholic Church teaches that assisted suicide and euthanasia are gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person while encouraging compassionate palliative and hospice care that accompanies patients through natural death.De Vos said she hopes lawmakers instead “think about the sacred gift of life that we are given by God,” adding: “I donʼt believe that itʼs up to the lawmakers… to give someone the autonomy to end their life.”")
A Canadian woman said her father’s assisted suicide came after failed efforts to secure hospice care, as Catholic ministries challenge New York’s assisted suicide law in court.
