SCROTUS wants to legalize AR15s in all 50 states

[New Breed Leader]

Link to tweet

?s=20

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.

[Cha]

1. How Fucking Depressing.

[Kid Berwyn]

2. Now WHY would anyone want to do that?

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” — Mao Zedong

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” — Adolf Hitler

“(Chicago’s semi-automatic weapons) ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”

— Clarence Thomas (2015)

Clarence Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/clarence-thomas-guns/553910/

[Frasier Balzov]

7. That's the insidious thing about 2A jurisprudence.

The worsening of the gun problem gives the imprimatur of legitimacy to its own continuation.

[Shermann]

3. Any mainstream news sources confirming this?

How do we really know what's in this supposed "shadow docket"?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. Its right here on SCOTUS website

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a948.html]

No. 22A948
Title: National Association for Gun Rights, et al., Applicants v. City of Naperville, Illinois, et al.
Docketed: May 1, 2023
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Numbers: (23-1353)

[emulatorloo]

9. That confirms case is on the docket. Supreme Court won't rule until they heard the case.

In otherwords, doesnt have info of how the Supreme Court will rule.

OP’s source says they “could rule,” but could isn’t the same as ‘did rule’ or ‘will rule.’

On Edit, i reread OP’s source, it says Supreme Court, ‘could’ hear the case. So I guess we don’t know at the point if the Supreme Court will even be hearing it.

[Aristus]

6. So much for 'leaving it up to the states', huh?

Jesus. Republicans fuck everything up!

[Haggis 4 Breakfast]

13. Well, I can tell you one state that will NOT take this lying down.

Our governor, Jay Inslee, just signed into law a widely-approved set of laws that ban certain weapons and extended magazines. I would imagine that he and our AG, Rob Ferguson, are watching this very closely.

It's funny (ok, it's really not) how state sovereignty is soooo respected by SCOTUS, until it's not.

[Hope22]

14. This!

Of all things to mandate! Disgusting and disturbing!

[Aristus]

15. Proud of my state!

Proud of Governor Islee. And excited that Rob Ferguson might be our next governor. I'd love to see Ferguson going head-to-head with a Supreme Court trying to force Washington State to sell AR-15's. I can just hear his argument: "What are you going to do? Deny us Federal funding for stuff? Dude! We pay out more in Federal taxes than we take in as Federal benefits. Deny us Federal funding, and we'll still have a net positive! We're not some welfare black hole like the red states!"

[dchill]

18. "States' rights" - unless they don't play along.

[Blue Owl]

8. So the SCOTUS conservative majority is encouraging and endorsing murder, then.

It's time to nullify these fucking sick fucks who answer to no one.

[emulatorloo]

10. They could hear a case. Not clear how they will rule or if they are encouraging anything from the

info we have. Or is there some source I don’t know about?

I am going off OP’s source. It says they ‘could’ hear a case. And they ‘could’ rule a certain way.

[edisdead]

21. Thats right thats what it says.

I don’t feel very good about how I think they will rule if the do rule on it.

Nevertheless we probably shouldn’t worry about it and voice our opinions and concerns right?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. ....

Nevertheless we probably shouldn’t worry about it and voice our opinions and concerns right?

Hmmm, that's weird, I read the whole thread and nowhere did anyone here say that.
Perhaps I missed it, would you be so kind as to post the link where that was said?

[Marthe48]

11. Lottery

Whether or not the (formerly) s.c. makes this lousy, deadly decision, any states who disagree with having assault weapons in their state, should limit the number of ar 15 or other weapons like it that can be sold in the state, and have a lottery to choose buyers. The people joining the lottery have to pay a high price, be fully vetted and there should be a waiting period from the time of the lottery to the drawing.

If that is somehow illegal by the majority of illegal s.c. members, then the states who are trying to protect their citizens from mass murderers should make a lottery for licensed gun dealers, again making sure the price of entering the lottery is amazingly high, that the gun dealer is fully vetted and that there is a waiting period before the drawing. And then limit the number of asault weapons that can be sold by any particular dealer.

[The Mouth]

32. Maybe just limit ownership to those who already have a unicorn?

Any restriction like that is just going to get tossed by SCOTUS.

I think the fundamental principle underlying *all* of their decisions is that only in the very rarest of cases, such as an obviously, proven violent and mentally incompetent person, can any governmental entity have any say in what a citizen can own or carry.

The gist of what I read between the lines is this: you can't make it any harder to own a gun than you do to vote: ID, not a felon, that's it.

I could be wrong, but I've been tracking the Federalist Society and their ilk for long before TFG was even a candidate.

[Marthe48]

33. Bet the founding fathers envisioned a different future

an idealistic view that life would be better, not the harsh, cruel world they lived in.
The world, the U.S. made a lot of progress toward a kinder society. Thanks to the federalist fascists, we devolved, right down the toilet.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the fascists want an army they don't train, don't arm, don't maintain and don't pay. In order to arm people who will answer their call anywhere any time to protect white supremacists, they arm anyone who wants a gun. The people who make the choice to murder innocents are a feature, not a bug.

[milestogo]

12. Part of their "pro-life" agenda

[Initech]

16. Yeah let's solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it. What could possibly go wrong?

I feel like I'm living in crazy backwards bizarro world right now.

[edisdead]

22. You presume they believe we have a gun problem

[TheRickles]

17. I thought conservatives didn't like activist judges....

[FBaggins]

19. There's no evidence supporting this claim at all

Someone filing a request for an appeal does not mean that they’ll hear a case - let alone rule on a “shadow docket” without even hearing arguments.

Frankly - the described content wouldn’t qualify for such a move because they we previously allowed some similar laws to stand. If they “wanted” to overturn lots of AR-15 restrictions they would have to go through the full process

[edisdead]

23. The point of the article is that they absolutely could do this.

will they? Who knows. I don’t feel too great thinking that they could.

Also Roe would never be overturned.

[FBaggins]

30. That just means that it's Wednesday

There are 2A cases in line for SCOTUS’ docket every day. Most of them are “cert denied” without comment or fanfare. The fact that such a case exists is not justification for these wild ramblings.

This has happened multiple times already this year on DU. Some wild-eyed post screams that SCOTUS HAS DOCKETED a nut job case that will radically change the constitution (!!! Sign our petition and donate now!!!).

Days later cert is denied unanimously without comment.

[Karadeniz]

20. To me, the 2A gives the states the power to equip and maintain a well regulated militia. SCOTUS

can just butt out.

[Dave says]

25. That's how I read it, too

[Karadeniz]

26. Spread the word!!!!! We need to email the justices!!

[housecat]

24. Can SCOTUS be sued? I'm already salivating over the prospect of discovery.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. No.

Can we sue the Supreme Court?

No. Neither can justices be sued. This is called. Also, the US federal state and local government as a sovereign cannot be sued either, unless it waives it's immunity.

https://legalknowledgebase.com/can-we-sue-the-supreme-court

[housecat]

31. I knew you were going to say that. Damn

[SYFROYH]

29. Combining "weapons of war" rhetoric with the test in US v Miller (1939), its very possible.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#:~:text=Miller%2C%20307%20U.S.%20174%20(1939)&text=Only%20weapons%20that%20have%20a,are%20free%20from%20government%20regulation.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

[Rhiannon12866]

34. Twitter replies:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[onenote]

35. Court refuses to black Naperville ban on AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-assault-weapons-bans-in-illinois/index.html

[Beaverhausen]

37. This is good news, right?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

38. Temporary reprieve

SCOTUS is going to let the circuit courts work through this first. Multiple cases are currently working their way through multiple courts right now.

Them not blocking enforcement right now is a plus, but it should not be taken as a predictor as to whether they would let the ban stand if it were to reach them.

[UTUSN]

36. K&R