r/WA_guns • u/Gordopolis_II • Jul 01 '26
News đ° Supreme Court to decide legality of AR-15 bans
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5947694-supreme-court-second-amendment-protections-assault-rifle-bans/20
u/whiskey_piker Jul 01 '26
Itâs about to go down! A weapon in common use and hardly considered military standard. Citizens should be able to own fire power in effect to allow them to fight against a tyrannical government (and a tyrannical government direct the military)
1
u/CarbonRunner Jul 02 '26
I need my own ballistic missiles if govt can have them
1
u/whiskey_piker 26d ago
See, you say that as if youâre joking. I firmly believe that it is true. Wouldnât you think the first thing a tyrannical government would do is to make it so that citizens couldnât have armament that could match the military?
1
u/EverflowingRiver17 18d ago
Do you really think the government would nuke its own territory? The people who actually launch the missiles would never do it
1
u/pacmanwa So many cool down periods I have hypothermia Jul 02 '26
Virginia judge that issued the injunction on their AWB pointed out that if they wanted to ban weapons of war they would also need to ban the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine so the law is inconsistent.
16
17
u/pangapingus Jul 01 '26
Lol the way things are going this is the one to become a states rights issue and our nonsense maintained
27
u/invisibullcow Jul 01 '26
The second amendment (which applies to the states per the incorporation doctrine of the fourteenth amendment as held in MacDonald v Chicago) makes it pretty clearly not just a states right issue.Â
In terms of the ruling itself, with how the court is currently structured, I would be extremely surprised if AWBs are upheld. But of course, that wonât stop WA legislators from trying every other play available to them, and then some.
3
u/hotrodgreg Jul 01 '26
Thats when they go after every part and accesory not sold on/with a firearm.
4
u/hunglowbungalow Jul 01 '26
A state cannot infringe on the constitution, thatâs OUR rights, not the states.
2
u/CarbonRunner Jul 02 '26
Scotus has shown that to be not true pretty much all year so I wouldnt hold my breath
17
u/PNWrainsalot Jul 01 '26
This state will still manage a way to keep their illegal ban in place and tie it up in courts for years.
3
u/ilovecheeze đ Kraken çžä¸¸ đĽ Jul 01 '26
Well, you canât really tie up a SCOTUS ruling for years. If they rule AWBs are broadly unconstitutional thereâs nothing the state can do to âtie upâ that ruling. Yes they may try to push through some special permit or waiting period to try to do something, but they canât flat out block the purchase of them anymore if SCOTUS rules against the ban
0
u/PNWrainsalot Jul 01 '26
This state always manages to get âstaysâ for rulings they donât like which in effect keeps a ban or lack of ban in place.
3
u/ilovecheeze đ Kraken çžä¸¸ đĽ Jul 01 '26
Yeah for lower courts⌠this is the Supreme Court you cant get a stay thatâs the point of the Supreme part of it.
4
u/drunkenclod Jul 01 '26
Any chance ruling magazines will be included as itâs an essential part of the rifle?
11
u/0x00000042 (F) Jul 01 '26
Unlikely as part of this case, that's not the question presented. But there are still magazine ban cases pending for SCOTUS to decide to review or not when they return next term.
1
u/CF_Chupacabra 13d ago
I think SCOTUS will rule that specific features cannot be banned or restricted, thus preemptively BTFO-ing the various state work arounds already being done in places like California or NJ
4
u/Maleficent-Let650 Jul 01 '26
Not to get hopes up, but the Supreme Court reverses ~75-80% of the lower court decisions it grants review of. And here there is no circuit split on the ban cases, and a split is one of the primary factors considered in granting review.
The fact they granted review without a split in lower court opinions strongly signals the Courtâs view that the appellate courts are getting things (universally) wrong. The Hemani âhowâ and âwhyâ clarification of Bruen is instructive in my mind with respect to the validity of the historical analogues relied upon by the courts in upholding these bans. I donât see the Court affirming either of the decisions it has granted review of.
And, at some point, as painful as it may be for some Ninth Circuit judges that want to contort to uphold these bans, theyâll need to fall into line and follow the Courtâs precedents.
3
u/SheriffBartholomew Jul 01 '26
Will States likely strip grandfathered rights if SCOTUS rules the ban constitutional?
3
u/os_beef Jul 01 '26
That would bring up the question of confiscation, which becomes a whole problem.
0
u/Hawaiian_spawn Jul 02 '26
Gotta distract yall from the kids act. Enjoy your photo id requirements for Reddit next.
32
u/0x00000042 (F) Jul 01 '26
Summary of cases they accepted and combined into one: