A new Supreme Court case seeks to legalize assault weapons in all 50 states

[In It to Win It]

Vox

The Supreme Court could hand down a decision any day now in National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, a case that could legalize assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in all 50 states.

The case challenges a Naperville, Illinois, ordinance and a similar Illinois state law, both of which ban assault weapons, which the state law defines to include certain semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s. Additionally, the state law prohibits the sale of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which the statute defines as long gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, or handgun magazines that hold more than 15 bullets.

The plaintiffs, which include a gun shop owner and a gun rights group, claim the two statutes violate the Second Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court accept that argument and overturn these laws, it would have sweeping implications for the entire country. That decision would need to be followed throughout the entire nation — which would most likely mean that neither any state nor the US Congress could ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.

And there is good reason to fear that this Court could, at the very least, decide to make semiautomatic assault rifles legal throughout the United States. In 2011, a federal appeals court upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons — over the dissent of an up-and-coming right-wing judge named Brett Kavanaugh.

Link to tweet

[WarGamer]

1. This can happen...

See California.

SACRAMENTO (KGO) -- As early as this week, a federal judge could once again rule to overturn California's longstanding ban on assault weapons.

The ruling -- which would come from Judge Roger Benitez -- is believed to be imminent, according to Kostas Moros, a lawyer representing the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Moros said the final response briefs in the cases are due on Tuesday and Benitez could rule any time after that.

Advocates on both sides of the gun debate issue say they expect Benitez, who is known for ruling against California's gun control laws, will decide to strike down the three-decades long law.

[J_William_Ryan]

2. "Should the Supreme Court accept that argument and overturn these laws..."

Which is will.

It would also result in an interesting unintended consequence for Republicans similar to Roe – in that Republicans won’t be about to lie about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’

Republicans use lies about guns being ‘banned’ as a way to keep the base frightened, angry, and going to the polls.

[FirstLight]

3. WTAF????

This would be like carte-blanche for mass shootings eve more so than now

[Straw Man]

8. Not really.

This would be like carte-blanche for mass shootings eve more so than now

Given the porous boundaries between states, individual states' bans on certain types of guns are unenforceable, for the most part, and certainly are no deterrent to someone bent on mass murder.

[MOMFUDSKI]

4. This decision will be

all about how big their balls are these days. They keep inviting more scrutiny and they really don't seem to be enjoying being in that ride in the blender. Go for it.

[in2herbs]

5. If this occurs, all forms of security for the USSC should be eliminated. Let them know how it

is for them and their loved one's to be afraid of getting killed when they go out in public.

A year or so ago Congress allotted funds for extra USSC security. Congress can start right now with pulling that back.

Same goes for members of Congress.

[Mme. Defarge]

6. Bingo!

[Timeflyer]

7. At what point do the gun humpers feel like their weapon is lethal enough?

It's probably pointless to ask about the number of guns they'd like to possess.

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

9. This will not end well.

Here in WA state, our governor, Jay Inslee, just signed into law a ban on certain types of rifles and extended magazines. It had wide-spread, across the parties, support.

We have a very schizophrenic relationship with state soverignty here in this country. States have rights to pass laws that THEIR citizens vote for or support until SCOTUS comes along and decides that we don't.

At this point, I have lost faith in SCOTUS's legitimacy and ability to rule fairly. No doubt out AG, Rob Ferguson, another good guy, is reading this closely.

[Historic NY]

10. Imagine an attack on the SCOTUS with all that weaponry,

they want to inflict it on the rest of the country, they should get into the victim game,.

[notdarkyet]

11. I think all these guns and any that people don't want anymore should be piled in front of the

SC lawn, as a memorial to the hundreds lost to gun violence. Give it up.

[Celerity]

12. Where do Blue states draw the line and tell the corrupt SCOTUS to FOAD?

I know for sure some will if SCOTUS goes full foetal personhood.

What if they strike down basically all major Blue state gun laws enacted in the past 20 or so years other than, say, you must be 18yo to buy (or even 16)??

Remember, SCOTUS's power of judicial review is NOT in the Constitution, Marshall invented it with

Marbury v Madison

.

The SCOTUS is NOT a national suicide pact. No part of the Constitution is.

There damn well likely will come a point when the Blue States rebel or, if not, they basically are accepting that the nation has now been fully turned over (or at least set well upon the path to being) to minoritarian christofash rule.

[RegulatedCapitalistD]

13. It's all in Heir Putins plan

To foment a Civil War in the U.S. and break up the country into warring factions