The Uncomfortable Truth for Antis as Semi-Auto Rifle Cases Loom at SCOTUS

A single paragraph in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on how two gun ban cases already accepted by the high court could guide the legal arguments. IMG Jim Grant

Buried 18 pages into a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Calce v. City of New York is an uncomfortable truth the gun prohibition lobby and its congressional and legislative allies want to avoid as two cases challenging bans on modern semiautomatic rifles are on the court’s docket for the term beginning in October.

By no small coincidence, both of those cases were also brought by SAF, and the outcome will almost certainly bring its sister organization—the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—out of the shadows, where it has dwelt for too long, and into the spotlight. More about this in a moment.

SAF’s Calce Petition Puts the Burden Back Where It Belongs

In SAF’s petition for Supreme Court review of New York City’s “recalcitrant” behavior regarding its stubborn refusal to obey the spirit, if not the letter, of the high court’s previous ruling on stun guns in a 2016 case known as Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which the Court rejected lower court rulings that said stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, the Court reminded the nation that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And this brings the saga around to Page 18 of the Calce petition, where it states, “The Second Amendment enshrines a right to keep and bear arms free from the interference of the government, outside of narrow, long-recognized exceptions. It makes no more sense, in this context, to permit the government to ban whatever it wants and require rights holders to come to court and prove the arm they wish to possess is worth the protection, than it would to allow the government to place a prior restraint on publishing unless a writer can affirmatively prove his content is not defamatory or obscene.”

Viramontes and Grant Put Semi-Auto Bans in the Crosshairs

Whether upcoming motions and/or amicus briefs expected in the dual gun ban cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—quote that passage, it is now part of the bedrock supporting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the definition of which goes beyond firearms, and by the time the high court convenes Oct. 4—the first Monday of the month—that paragraph will have been widely read.

Of particular importance to the CCRKBA is the fact that Grant v. Higgins is a case that has been fought and pursued over the past five years by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. CCDL has been the lead organizational plaintiff in the Grant case since its inception, and is a CCRKBA state affiliate, and now SAF’s ally in this case.

Leading this legal effort is CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan, who is also CCDL president. These facts combined literally bring the Committee into the battle.

In a recent CCRKBA statement to the media about her direct involvement in the Grant case, she said, “Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.”

As noted by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a recent news release, “Because CCDL is a plaintiff in the Grant case challenging Connecticut’s rifle ban, it essentially puts the Committee on the playing field. Frankly, we wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Meanwhile, joining SAF in the Viramontes case is the Firearms Policy Coalition. The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to take both Viramontes and Grant, with the likelihood they will be consolidated, cannot be overstated.

A 2027 Ruling Could Reshape Gun Bans Nationwide

As Gottlieb mentioned in a chat with AmmoLand, Grant deals with a local government ban while Viramontes addresses a statewide ban. The ruling, which will likely arrive in June 2027, could be a blockbuster because it will literally cover the bases.

After all, some observers have hinted, the Court would not take two such cases if it intended merely to preserve the status quo.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a SAF news release. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

The outcome may not be for all the marbles, but it could easily come close to filling the legal glass jar.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/XLybeaT
via IFTTT

Mark Smith Was Right: Supreme Court’s AR-15 Move Was Strategy, Not a Snub

“Several weeks ago, I explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s silence on the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle question did not demonstrate hostility to the Second Amendment, but rather constituted a rationing of the high Court’s docket space. Now the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases proves my point: the Court’s decision to push the AR-15 question to the Fall of 2026 was deliberate all along. Here are my receipts.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases — Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 25-238, out of the Seventh Circuit, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, out of the Second Circuit — setting up oral argument in the October 2026 with a decision expected by June 2027. I am not revisiting that news here. I am writing this because I told you it was coming, in print, more than a month before it happened, and I explained then exactly why the Court’s silence on the AR-15 question earlier this Term was strategy rather than retreat. My prediction has now been vindicated, and the reasoning behind it tells you more about how this case will be decided than the bare fact of the grant does.

What I Wrote in Early May 2026

In an AmmoLand article published in May, I addressed a frequent question: why had SCOTUS passed over an AR-15 case this Term? I wrote then: “The Supreme Court did not skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect. They ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.”

I made the same point in a video a few weeks later, walking through the reasoning in more detail: “I’m often asked why the Supreme Court did not take an AR-15 or large-capacity-magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Supreme Court is dodging the Second Amendment, but there is another, more basic explanation. The justices have one of the most packed precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.”

A Court Docket Rationed, Not Refused

The Supreme Court decides roughly seventy cases a year on the merits, drawn from every corner of federal and constitutional law — criminal procedure, intellectual property, environmental regulation, tax issues, tort questions, ERISA, the death penalty, civil rights and more. In a single SCOTUS Term, the Court can typically absorb only one or two cases in any given subject area, and this Term’s docket was extraordinarily heavy with high-stakes executive-power, tariff, and immigration disputes. That left room for two Second Amendment cases at most.

And the Court used its 2A allotment on Wolford v. Lopez, the Hawaii “vampire rule” no-carry default carry case, and United States v. Hemani, the drug-user firearm-prohibition case brought at the U.S. Solicitor General’s own urging.

An AR-15 case would have been a third, and that would have been too much given this Term’s politically-charged docket. Chief Justice Roberts manages the docket the way any institution with finite political capital manages risk: he spends it deliberately. Reading that restraint as hostility to the Second Amendment mistook institutional bandwidth for institutional intent.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Chessboard

The clearest previous signal came from Justice Kavanaugh, whose forecasting record on this Court is difficult to ignore. Roughly eighteen months before the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), he had already indicated publicly that the Court needed to resolve whether the right to bear arms extended to public carry — and it did, in Bruen.

Justice Kavanaugh had since signaled that the AR-15 question would come before the Court “in the next term or two.” That is precisely the sequence that has now unfolded: the cert grants in Viramontes and Grant lands squarely in the October 2026 Term, exactly the window Kavanaugh identified.

I also read the Court’s decision this Term in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026), a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Alito, as a preview: its treatment of the Second Amendment’s text against the historical record reads like a dress rehearsal for the Court’s AR-15 analysis to come.

WW II Island Hopping Metaphor and SCOTUS

The same order list that granted certiorari in the rifle cases held two magazine-ban petitions — Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198, out of California, and State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., No. 25-153. That sequencing is deliberate, and I view it as good news rather than a snub. Litigating an AR-15 ban and a magazine ban before the Court in the same Term risks handing a justice inclined toward the middle the room needed to split the difference — striking the rifle ban while upholding the magazine restriction. Keeping the cases apart forecloses that compromise.

Relatedly, this incremental approach to restoring our Second Amendment rights mirrors America’s World War II island-hopping campaign in the Pacific theatre: resolve the semiautomatic-rifle question first, let the reasoning in Viramontes and Grant settle (reaffirm) the governing legal framework, and then bring the magazine and suppressor questions forward on a foundation the Court has already built. I expect the Court to hold Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns for roughly a year and then remand them via a GVR in light of the AR-15 decision, not deny them outright.

The Record So Far Supports the Bet

The anti-gun lobby has poured enormous resources into defending assault-weapons bans precisely because the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. A ruling that the Second Amendment protects it would be the most significant restoration of the right to keep and bear arms since Heller itself, and it would supply lower courts with language they can use against the pending magazine and suppressor bans in due course. The Supreme Court’s caution earlier over the last year or two was not evasion. It was preparation, and the timing has run exactly the course I described weeks before the cert grants.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/Orem4yf
via IFTTT

Virginia Court Blocks Spanberger’s Semi-Auto Rifle and Magazine Ban Statewide

Virginia gun owners scored another major Second Amendment win after a court blocked enforcement of Spanberger’s semi-auto rifle and magazine ban statewide. IMG Tim Potter

A Washington County judge has issued a universal injunction—meaning a court order that prohibits enforcement statewide—against Virginia’s bans on so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines, marking another setback for the anti-gun movement in the state.

This new injunction, in the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed case Santolla v. Katz, is scheduled to take effect on July 21, 2026. It forbids any law enforcement agency or Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia from enforcing laws that prohibit specific firearms, often referred to as “assault firearms,” and large-capacity magazines.

Statewide Injunction Stops Virginia’s New Gun Ban

This is the second injunction blocking the law, following a similar ruling by a judge in Lancaster County. Most people believed the first injunction blocked the law entirely, but some federal firearms licensees (FFLs) continued to follow it because it named only the state police.

“The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines,” John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said. “The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.”

Judge Rejects Patchwork Enforcement Scheme

The July 21 effective date was set to give local law enforcement and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys time to be notified. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones had sought to limit the scope of the injunction to allow the law to take effect. The judge in the case, Jeffrey L. Campbell, pointed out that a limited injunction would not prevent harm to the plaintiffs.

The judge wrote: “Should this Court’s prior ruling be limited only to party defendants herein, a person could freely transport an AR-15 through Washington County without fear of running afoul of the law. However, if they crossed the county line into Grayson County, then, arguably, they could be charged for the same conduct since the coverage of the injunction would not extend therein. This Court has concerns about the treacherous patchwork of enforcement that this may lead to for the Plaintiffs and law enforcement alike and whether this ruling should be amplified to include, universally, all of the Commonwealth and law enforcement agencies within the same.”

The NRA called out Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger for trying to infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of Virginians in a statement following the victory.

“The NRA’s world-class legal team delivered a clear, powerful argument demonstrating that Abigail Spanberger’s gun ban is a blatant constitutional infringement on the rights of law-abiding Virginians,” said Commerford. “Our strategy has now secured a comprehensive statewide injunction, blocking enforcement of this law until the courts hear our full case. This is a major victory, but our mission is not complete. We will not rest until this unconstitutional measure is struck down in its entirety and added to the long list of gun control laws the NRA has removed from the books for good.”

Second Injunction Adds Pressure On Commonwealth

This is the second loss this week for the Commonwealth’s anti-gun plans. Earlier this week, the state tried to consolidate all the challenges to the “assault firearms” and magazine ban into a single case. The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected the move, meaning the Commonwealth will have to defend the law in multiple jurisdictions. These include challenges in both state and federal courts.

Other plaintiffs include Gun Owners of America (GOA), Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

The injunction is set to remain in effect through July 2027. By that time, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to have issued rulings in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which many believe will declare all “assault weapons” bans unconstitutional.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/zaIscTC
via IFTTT

Third Circuit Orders New Briefing As New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Defense Starts To Crack

The Third Circuit just put New Jersey’s AR-15 and magazine ban case back under the spotlight.

In a July 6 order entered at the direction of the en banc court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invited the parties in the consolidated Cheeseman / ANJRPC challenge to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. Those briefs are due July 10 at noon, are limited to 1,500 words, and the court made clear that extensions will not be granted absent truly exceptional circumstances.

That is a major development in one of the most important Second Amendment cases currently pending in the lower courts.

Why Wolford And Hemani Matter To New Jersey’s Gun Ban

As AmmoLand previously reported, Wolford may have punched a serious hole in New Jersey’s defense of its so-called “assault firearms” ban. The key issue is whether New Jersey can force gun owners to prove AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected before the state has to justify banning them. Wolford strengthens the argument that the first question is simpler: does the law regulate “Arms”? If so, the Second Amendment is already in play.

That is a problem for Trenton.

New Jersey is not regulating some obscure device. It is banning rifles owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, training, and competition. It is also restricting magazines that gun owners correctly call standard capacity, not “large capacity.”

Mark Smith Predicts A Major Second Amendment Ruling

Mark Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, called the Third Circuit’s new order “a huge order” and said it may reveal where the court is heading. Smith believes the court “fully intends to move forward” instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the newly granted AR-15 cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

On June 30, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes and Grant, consolidating the cases to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. That case is now the big one. Every anti-gun state with a rifle ban is watching it. Every gun owner should be watching it too.

But the Third Circuit may not be waiting.

The Ninth Circuit recently vacated submission in Miller v. Bonta, the California “assault weapon” case, pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Viramontes and Grant. The Ninth Circuit effectively hit pause. Smith contrasted that with the Third Circuit’s fast briefing order and argued the Third Circuit may be preparing a “very powerful pro-second amendment ruling.”

At minimum, the order shows the en banc Third Circuit is actively working the case and wants the parties to explain how the Supreme Court’s newest gun-rights rulings affect New Jersey’s ban. If the court intended to shelve the case completely until SCOTUS acts, it would not need urgent briefing on Wolford and Hemani.

A Pro-2A Ruling Could Shape The Supreme Court’s AR-15 Case

For gun owners, the stakes are enormous. A pro-Second Amendment Third Circuit ruling would immediately change the legal battlefield. It could create or deepen a circuit split. It could give the Supreme Court a serious originalist roadmap before it hears Viramontes and Grant. And it could put New Jersey’s gun-control machine on defense at the worst possible time for the anti-gun lobby.

Wolford reinforced that courts cannot smuggle gun-control assumptions into the first step of the analysis. Hemani again reminded the government that it bears the burden when it tries to disarm the people.

Now the Third Circuit has asked what those decisions mean for New Jersey’s AR-15 and magazine bans.

The answer should be obvious: commonly owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/xdcNIDG
via IFTTT

Supreme Court AR-15 Case May Put Magazine Bans in the Crosshairs

The Supreme Court’s review of AR-15-platform rifle bans could have consequences for other Second Amendment fights, including magazine restrictions. IMG Jim Grant

As the 2025 session came to an end, the Supreme Court gave us a lovely parting gift: It agreed to review Grant v. Higgins* (25-566), Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, and Cutberto Viramontes v. Cook County (25-238), Cook County, Illinois’ version. In its grant of certiorari, the court rolled Grant into Viramontes with arguments to be scheduled for the Fall 2026 Term.

While there are lots of issues raised by Grant and Viramontes, the Supreme Court limited consideration to a single question: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”

Presumably, the court’s benchmark will be the Heller standard: In common use for lawful purposes, a test the AR-15 will easily pass with flying colors.

Gun rights and Second Amendment advocates were delighted the court, after years of kicking this particular can to a future term. However, there was a lot of disappointment because the court punted magazine bans again.

The Magazine Ban Question SCOTUS Didn’t Take

This is frustrating; Duncan v. Bonta was originally filed in 2017, and this is the second time it has been before the Supreme Court. The court GVR’d the case in 2022, and it went through the entire Ninth Circuit appellate process for a second time.

But this time, there’s a twist that could resolve the issue sooner rather than later.

Connecticut General Statute § 53-202a extends well beyond evil black rifles. It also includes the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines.

The Heller standard could be applied here, as well, but it isn’t needed. If AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms are covered by the Second Amendment, so are their parts – including magazines.

Magazines Are Not Optional Accessories

One of the silliest debates in gun control is whether detachable magazines are optional accessories or necessary components. Accessory adherents stake their argument on the ability use magazines of different capacities without otherwise affecting the gun. The design of the AR-15 platform rebuts this claim because the user can easily change the rifle’s caliber from .223 Remington to the slightly more powerful .300 AAC Blackout by exchanging the barrel.

Haven’t seen anyone claim the barrel is an accessory.

Since the Kalthoff Repeater was developed in 1630, repeating firearms have always required a magazine, cylinder, or similar mechanism. This is just as true for a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action rifle as it is for an automatic or semiautomatic rifle.

Even the most ignorant, diehard gun-grabber will have to admit a repeating firearm isn’t really a repeater if there’s not a fresh cartridge on hand. This means a magazine is a critical component for a repeating firearm to operate as intended by the manufacturer.

The objection that a rifle could be manually loaded with one shot at a time is frivolous. It misses the point. A repeating firearm was designed and manufactured to fire multiple shots without reloading and was purchased by the consumer at least in part for that reason.

What sets automatic and semiautomatic firearms apart is the fact they are self-loading. They require no mechanical action by the user. A round is fired and the gun utilizes recoil or the gases created by the burning powder to eject the spent cartridge, strip a fresh round from the magazine, and reload the chamber.

Remington’s first semi-auto long gun was the 1906 Autoloading Rifle, which debuted a year after the Winchester Model 1905, the first semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine. The Winchester Model 1907 was the first to offer a magazine holding more than ten rounds.

The first ban on ‘large-capacity magazines’ was enacted in New Jersey in 1990, 83 years after the Winchester Model 1907 was introduced.

How does all of this work to justify adding magazine restrictions to the Supreme Court’s consideration of Viramontes? By recognizing magazines as necessary parts of a firearm, they automatically become weapons for Second Amendment purposes.

The AR-15, M1 Carbine, and Standard-Capacity Magazines

The Colt AR-15 Sporter went on sale in 1964. The standard (and original) magazine held 20 rounds. Colt did offer an insertable spacer that reduced capacity to five rounds to comply with state hunting laws.

The first AK-47 variant in the U.S. was the Valmet M62/S imported by Interarms beginning in 1969. Its sole magazine held 30 rounds.

Of course, there was always the World War II M1 Carbine sold as surplus in the hundreds of thousands by the U.S. government beginning around 1960. There was a choice of two magazines holding either 15 or 30 cartridges.

It’s important to remember both the Colt AR-15 and the Valmet M62/S were intended for sales into the civilian market.

So there is a solid link between what the ban fans call assault rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

The Rifle Case May Reach Further Than Rifle Bans

There has never been a verifiable reason for a ten-round limit. It’s been justified as based on an estimate the number of rounds fired in a citizen engagement. Using the same standard, police should be limited to carrying a total of 32 rounds instead of the 45 to 51 carried by uniformed patrol officers.

Former U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez questioned the ten-round limit’s provenance when he heard Duncan v. Bonta for the second time in September 2023. In his ruling, he found California’s defense “unpersuasive.”

It may seem like I took a long, roundabout way to get here but it’s the details underlying the reasoning. And it could reshape Duncan and Gator’s, or give the Court a reason to send them back for reconsideration.

*Originally filed as Grant v. Rovella

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/LNzYEjl
via IFTTT

Denver Gun Ban Faces New Lawsuit As Supreme Court Takes Up AR-15 Cases

FPC and CSSA filed Elliott v. Denver to challenge Denver’s so-called “assault weapon” ban and Colorado magazine restrictions as the Supreme Court prepares to hear major AR-15 ban cases. IMG Travis Pike

Denver’s long-running gun ban just picked up another serious legal problem.

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Colorado State Shooting Association have filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Denver’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Denver’s and Colorado’s bans on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The case, Elliott v. Denver, was filed the same day the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear major challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

Denver’s Ban Targets Common Semiautomatic Firearms

The plaintiffs argue that these bans infringe the right to keep and bear commonly possessed arms (including standard-capacity magazines) for self-defense, home defense, and other lawful purposes. They claim that these bans fail the Bruen standard (the text-and-history test). The first step in the Bruen analysis is to determine whether the conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. As affirmed by the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision, the question in step one is whether the plaintiffs are members of the “people.” The plaintiffs are undoubtedly part of the political community and therefore part of “the people.”

The second question in step one is whether the arm is bearable. Anti-gun attorneys and judges have tried to shoehorn other meanings into step one, such as claiming that the plain text does not cover “military-style” weapons. Wolford shut the door on this underhanded tactic. Courts can only consider if an arm is bearable, full stop. The latest Supreme Court Second Amendment cases make the localities’ job of defending such bans harder than ever.

After the text analysis is complete, the case moves to step two.

Colorado Magazine Ban Also Challenged

According to FPC, it will be up to the state and city to use the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations from the founding era to prove that Denver’s bans are constitutional. FPC and the other plaintiffs do not believe that either Denver or Colorado can meet that burden. The complaint highlights that magazines with over 15 rounds have been common since the mid-19th century (for example, in Winchester rifles).

The plaintiffs also point to Heller. They argue that semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines are in common use today and thus cannot be banned as “dangerous and unusual.” Anti-gun defendants have tried to append “for self-defense” to the phrase “in common use,” but Wolford clarified that it is common use for both defensive and offensive purposes. Even if they could prove that AR-15s are not used for self-defense, they will not be able to prove that the firearms and magazines are not in common use for other lawful purposes.

The state will be hard-pressed to find historical analogues to support the city’s ban. What anti-gun states had success with in the past was shifting the relevant founding era from the ratification date of the Second Amendment (1791) to the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). This had allowed the states to use racist Black Codes from the Reconstruction era to justify modern bans, but the Supreme Court has been hostile to using racist gun laws to justify modern-day restrictions. Even from last year, the state’s task of defending Denver’s ban has become significantly harder.

DOJ Already Has Denver And Colorado In Court

The lawsuit asks the court to issue declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the bans, plus attorneys’ fees and costs under § 1983 and § 1988. This isn’t the only lawsuit the city is facing. The DOJ has also set its sights on the City’s ban.

With SCOTUS taking up two “assault weapons” ban cases, many believe that bans across the country might be heading to the trash heap of history.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/o3FsXxP
via IFTTT

New York’s War on the Second Amendment Escalated After Bruen

When the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June of 2022, millions of Americans believed New York had finally been forced to respect the Constitution. The Court was clear. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, and government restrictions must be consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It was one of the most significant Second Amendment victories in American history. New York’s response? Defiance.

New York’s CCIA Was Albany’s Answer

Just eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a carry permit, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) into law. Rather than complying with the Court’s decision, Albany lawmakers rewrote the rulebook in an apparent attempt to accomplish through new legislation what they had just been forbidden from doing by the court. Except, the CCIA was more of the same, if not worse, legislation.

If Bruen was the Supreme Court telling New York, “You cannot deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms,” the CCIA was New York replying, “Watch us.” The state replaced one unconstitutional obstacle with dozens of new ones.

Suddenly, ordinary citizens who had jumped through every legal hoop were confronted with an ever-growing maze of restrictions. Sensitive locations multiplied across the state. Private property became off-limits by default. New requirements, extensive disclosures, interviews, character references, training mandates, social media invasions, and other bureaucratic hurdles transformed a constitutional right into an expensive, time-consuming privilege… and for most, a far-off dream.

And the lawsuits began.

The “Vampire Rule” and Sensitive-Place Problem

One after another, federal courts examined portions of New York’s new law. Some restrictions survived. Others did not. The prohibition on carrying on virtually all private property unless expressly permitted was struck down. This was nicknamed the “Vampire Rule,” because like a vampire in folklore, guns were not allowed in private businesses that were open to the public, unless they were specifically invited in.

Courts recognized that many of New York’s provisions simply had no historical analogue, which was the very test the Supreme Court required in Bruen.
Yet despite repeated courtroom losses, New York continued defending nearly every restriction it enacted.

This has become the state’s strategy: pass the law first, spend taxpayer dollars defending it later, and force citizens to spend years, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars, simply trying to reclaim rights they never should have lost in the first place. Then, if the people win, start the process all over again.

The damage, however, isn’t measured only in legal fees. It’s measured in public safety. Every time New York creates another “gun-free zone,” it creates another place where law-abiding citizens are disarmed while violent criminals remain unconcerned with compliance. Criminals do not consult maps of sensitive locations before committing robberies, assaults, or murders. They don’t pause to determine whether they’re violating Penal Law before pulling a trigger. Only the law-abiding do.

Permit Holders Became Targets of Bureaucracy

The predictable result is that the people most likely to obey these laws become the least capable of defending themselves when violence erupts. The irony is impossible to ignore, but somehow Hochul and her Democrat majority state legislature have managed to do a fine job of it.

Politicians claim these restrictions make New Yorkers safer while simultaneously ensuring that responsible citizens are unable to defend themselves during the very moments, they need that protection most. The state has effectively told millions of permit holders, “You have the right to carry a firearm, just not where you’re most likely to need one.”

Out-of-State Gun Owners Face a Legal Minefield

But the problem extends beyond New York residents. Visitors from every other state in the nation face a legal minefield the moment they cross the border into New York. A concealed carry permit that is recognized throughout much of the country becomes meaningless upon entering The Empire State. Travelers who have undergone background checks, completed training, and carried responsibly for years can suddenly become criminals simply because New York refuses to recognize permits issued by other states. This is not to say that carry permits are an acceptable requirement in the first place, but if NY is going to turn a God given right into a government issued privilege, it should at least offer the same to out of state visitors.

Imagine a woman who legally carries a firearm every day in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Florida. She drives into New York to visit family or attend an event. The firearm she lawfully carried for personal protection moments earlier has now become the basis for felony charges if she fails to navigate one of the most confusing hodgepodge of firearm laws in America.

The message couldn’t be clearer. New York doesn’t trust its own citizens. It doesn’t trust visitors from other states. It doesn’t trust permit holders who have passed background investigations. It doesn’t even trust the Constitution after the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The state trusts only government control. Or maybe, it’s not about trust at all and more about making sure that any and all political opposition to the supermajority Democrat legislature is put in a perpetual state of unarmed helplessness.

What makes this particularly troubling is that every legislative defeat seems to produce another attempt to regulate around constitutional protections. Instead of respecting judicial decisions, New York lawmakers search for new angles, new restrictions, and new ways to burden a right that the Constitution commands “shall not be infringed.”

No other constitutional right is treated this way.

Imagine requiring citizens to obtain government permission before publishing a newspaper article, attend eighteen hours of training before speaking publicly, or be prohibited from attending church because the building happened to be located within a designated “sensitive area.” Yet when the right involved is the Second Amendment, many elected officials suddenly become comfortable treating constitutional protections as negotiable.

They are not.

Why the Fight Is Bigger Than New York

The Constitution does not become optional because a governor disagrees with it.

Fundamental rights are not granted by Albany. They are recognized by the Constitution and protected from government infringement. That is precisely why Bruen mattered. It reminded the nation that constitutional rights do not depend upon whether politicians approve of them.

Unfortunately, New York’s response demonstrated that some politicians still believe constitutional rights are merely obstacles to be worked around.

For four years, lawful gun owners have endured an exhausting cycle of unconstitutional legislation, expensive litigation, and endless uncertainty. Every court victory has been met with another government effort to preserve restrictions that lack any historical or constitutional foundation. This should concern every American, regardless of where they stand on firearms, because when government can ignore one constitutional right after the Supreme Court has spoken, every constitutional right becomes less secure. The Second Amendment was never intended to exist only where politicians find it convenient, and freedom was never supposed to require permission from those who are determined to restrict it.

Could a New Governor Change Course?

There may, however, be reason for cautious optimism. If Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman is elected governor, New York could see a markedly different approach to the Second Amendment. Blakeman has consistently presented himself as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and has been openly critical of policies that burden law-abiding gun owners while doing little to stop violent criminals.

While no governor can erase every unconstitutional law with the stroke of a pen, many restrictions are written into statute and would require legislative action or continued court victories. A governor committed to defending constitutional rights could reshape the state’s priorities. That includes directing state agencies to respect the limits established by the Supreme Court, ending the relentless defense of questionable restrictions in court, and focusing law enforcement resources on violent offenders instead of responsible citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/p0jP3g9
via IFTTT