SCOTUS to hear AR15 ban cases!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guns.com Vault
Gather App
 
We shall see what happens, but do not get your hopes too high. The SCOTUS delivered some 2A wins this term, but that does not guarantee they will do the same in the next term. In other words, exercise cautious optimism.
 
Our local 2A groups take on the subject:

HUGE NEWS ON AWBs!!!

Today, June 30 2026, 4 days before the 4th of July, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just granted Certiorari (judicial review) on Viramontes v Cook, and they then consolidated that case with Grant v Higgins, two cases which challenge the constitutionality of bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (incorrectly referred to as “Assault Weapons Bans - (AWBs).”

This means that SCOTUS will FINALLY hear arguments on the constitutionality of AWBs, and we already know what the outcome will be.

As you may be aware, there are also currently 3 challenges to bans on “High Capacity” magazines in front of SCOTUS that have been waiting for action, however all three of these cases have been held over; likely meaning that once SCOTUS decides the unconstitutionality of Modern Sporting Rifles bans, they will then Grant, Vacate and Remand (GVR) all three magazine bans.

When SCOTUS GVRs a case, it means that SCOTUS disagrees with the decision of the lower court(s); they Vacate the lower court’s decision(s), and they then Remand the case back down to the lower court to have the lower court do it over, using guidance provided by SCOTUS.

So: Come this fall when SCOTUS re-convenes (they take the summer off), they will hear arguments on AWBs. They will consider the arguments made and then render their decision, and it is how they write that decision that will then give guidance to the lower courts on how and what those inferior courts should consider when they make their new decision on standard capacity magazines.
 
biku324 said:
Every time this goes to SCOTUS you risk a literal reading of the 2A wherein we'll have the right to carry flintlocks, muskets, muzzle-loading shotguns and rifles. Maybe not this time, but what about next time? SCOTUS just threw 90 years of precedent in another matter.
Click to expand...
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. If this is your interpolation of the 2nd amendment then we can assume that you don't have the freedom from search and seizure of your personal papers that are typed/printed or freedom of speech that is broadcast, texted, on the internet, etc. :rolleyes: I'm not sure what 90 years of precedent you are refiring to, but less we forget it was 62 years between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.
I wouldn't get too excited either. It's just as likely SCOTUS will just throw the ball back into the lower courts lap for reconsideration. AKKA: Dragging their feet on making a decision.
 
fatcat3 said:
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. If this is your interpolation of the 2nd amendment then we can assume that you don't have the freedom from search and seizure of your personal papers that are typed/printed or freedom of speech that is broadcast, texted, on the internet, etc. :rolleyes: I'm not sure what 90 years of precedent you are refiring to, but less we forget it was 62 years between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.
I wouldn't get too excited either. It's just as likely SCOTUS will just throw the ball back into the lower courts lap for reconsideration. AKKA: Dragging their feet on making a decision.
Click to expand...
Believe as you want.....but whenever you have courts resolve your issue you cannot be sure of the outcome.

The overturned case was based on Federal law - Humphrey's Executor v United States (1935) which they overturned the 29th of June.
 
Last edited:
I see a glimmer of hope. However, past experience has made me very pessimistic.
SCOTUS has tended to nibble around the periphery and not tackle 2A civil liberty bans head on.

We'll see if it goes anywhere.
 
Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule in favor of black rifles and standard capacity mags. Then they will have to rule again on the same issues as each of the states on both coasts openly disregard the ruling and get sued individually. State courts and District courts in D states just ignore SCOTUS rulings for the most part if they support a Constitutional right. If you don't believe me then how are more and more states banning Glocks in the face of Bruen?
 
^^^
Careful analysis shows that a ban on Glocks is more nuanced than one might think.

First, although Bruen laid down the law as to how 2A cases should be addressed, it spoke only to a law about restricting where people can carry and said nothing about what made a weapon unusually dangerous or not in common use.

Second, banning Glocks would not ban a whole class of weapons that would otherwise be protected. Even if all the Glock would go away there would still be plenty of semi-auto handguns to choose from.

The interesting question in a Glock ban case is whether an otherwise ordinary firearm can nonetheless be banned because it can be easily turned into an unusually dangerous gun not in common use.
 
Last edited:
Heller may be more appropriate to this than Bruen. The grabbers are trying to create a new category by saying easily converted to something banned or regulated or not in common use.... therefore ban. Certainly every rifle and shotgun are easily converted to short barreled. Every pistol could be easily converted to an SBR by gluing on a stock. Therefore ban. Maybe that's part of their plan.
 
I suspect gun guys are overthinking this. In the public mind are the semi- and full-auto rifles used in the Las Vegas strip, and the semi-auto rifles used at Sandy Hook, the Texas First Baptist Church, and Orlando nightclub mass killings, the bloodiest in recent US history.
 
I think this is excellent news.
dockmurgw said:
…As you may be aware, there are also currently 3 challenges to bans on “High Capacity” magazines in front of SCOTUS that have been waiting for action, however all three of these cases have been held over; likely meaning that once SCOTUS decides the unconstitutionality of Modern Sporting Rifles bans, they will then Grant, Vacate and Remand (GVR) all three magazine bans…
Click to expand...
This is what i think, too.
 
crstrode said:
Don't hold your breath. A ruling is at least a year away, and it will be made by the same court that granted full citizenship to the child of a pregnant Chicom fresh off the boat for a short stay in a taxpayer funded maternity clinic.
Click to expand...
It is a strange thing, but this court seems to be a bit bipolar with its decisions.
 
biku324 said:
Believe as you want.....but whenever you have courts resolve your issue you cannot be sure of the outcome.

The overturned case was based on Federal law - Humphrey's Executor v United States (1935) which they overturned the 29th of June.
Click to expand...
As they should have.

Many Supreme Court decisions need to be overturned and many already have been.
 
biku324 said:
.but whenever you have courts resolve your issue you cannot be sure of the outcome.
Click to expand...
Agreed but what other option would you suggest?
biku324 said:
The overturned case was based on Federal law - Humphrey's Executor v United States (1935) which they overturned the 29th of June.
Click to expand...
Bad case law is bad case law. "Separate but equal" was bad case law. Federal trade commissioners, need to be on board with the executive branch and congress policies, OR act that way. If they are not, can't, won't, they need to go away. No matter if it's Nixon opening trade with China, DJT placing tariffs on China, or someone/something in between.
Article I, Section 8
Article II, Section 2
 
The Supreme Court could save themselves a lot of trouble if they would simply rule that all bans on firearms are an unconstitutional infringement upon the Second Amendment.

Then they wouldn't have to review anymore bits of Gun Control Legislation on the grounds that the Second Amendment as it is written clearly states "These rights shall not be infringed" and therefore any/all attempts to regulate firearms ownership is automatically unconstitutional and no arguments to the contrary will be entertained.
 
CH4 said:
“Weapons in common use for lawful purposes”
No wiggle room. They’ve been waiting to tee this one up. Blue states’ sphincters have slammed shut! We’ll likely know the outcome during oral arguments and have the answer by this time next year. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Click to expand...

Some of the questions we’d like to see directed to the State and County at Oral Argument

1) Do you agree that AR15 type rifles are the most popular rifle in America.

2) Do you agree that AR15 type rifles are in common use.

3) Do you agree that home defense is a lawful purpose.

4) Do you agree that target shooting is a lawful purpose.

5) Do you agree that being prepared to defend against a tyrannical government is a lawful purpose.

6) Do you contend that adding a bayonet lug to an otherwise lawful rifle makes that rifle unusually dangerous.

7) Do you agree that there are lawful uses of AR15 rifles.

8) Do you agree that prior to the 1980’s there was NO history of prohibiting semi-automatic rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Onomea
  • Locked
Supreme Court and Magazine Capacity Limits
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
Brownie0486
Brownie0486
S
Injunction against Virginia's AWB to be expanded state wide on July 21, 2026
Replies
2
Views
217
stansdds
S
R
Wash State mag ban case, Gator's Guns update
Replies
6
Views
769
Racer X
R
Sigma Fanatic
Well, it’s a good thing that I got them when I did…..
Replies
8
Views
708
Sigma Fanatic
Sigma Fanatic
Malpasowildlifer
  • Locked
For Sale SPF -WTS: Smith & Wesson post-war Outdoorsman .38 Special Fort Collins, CO
Replies
1
Views
630
USSR
USSR

Latest posts

Back
Top