The Future of "Assault Rifle" Bans

[Durango_Dave]

The lawmakers have redefined assault rifles to, at the least, cover the AR-15 platform and at most include most semi-automatic rifles. Then they make laws banning these guns.

I think the Supreme Court clearly outlined in DC v Heller (also reiterated in Bruen) that the Constitution protects guns that are commonly used for lawful purposes.

What worries me is that the Supreme Court declined to block the Illinois Assault Weapon Ban.

What’s up with that???
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/justices-wont-block-illinois-ban-on-assault-style-weapons/

My question to everyone is not what the Supreme Court should do. I think that's obvious (especially when asking a web site full of gun enthusiasts).

I'd like to ask what you guys think WILL happen to these "Assault Rifle" Bans that are going into effect in more and more states. I really thought the Supreme Court would have jumped at the chance to stop these bans once and for all.

Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) needs to be struck down for multiple reasons. They are banning “assault weapons” and grandfathering in existing guns with a gun registry. The government can’t make a gun registry according to subsection 103(i) of the Brady Act.
Federal Gun Registry Prohibitions

 

[jmorris]

The future? I think anti gun people wont stop until there are no more. Banning semiauto's isn't the end game, just another step, just like shutting the door on machineguns back on May 19 1986.

Tides change along the way though, Clinton signed the FAWB in 1994 and it sunset a decade later. There is probably a political tide change in our future but just like with Bush and fellow (R's), I don't expect much pro gun action as much as inaction. Trump already decided plastic stocks that don't lock are machineguns...

They just want our votes, thats why the don't pass proactive measures, unless they have some poison pill in them, like the Hughes amendment to the FOPA.

 

[Durango_Dave]

The future? I think anti gun people wont stop until there are no more.

I can't disagree with that but the main job of the Supreme Court is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. And they've been doing that for other gun laws. Almost to the point of being redundant.
Heller - we have the right to keep arms.
Bruen - We have the right to bear arms.
McDonald v. Chicago 2010 - Heller wasn't just for the District of Columbia, it's for states too.
Friedman v Highland Park IL 2015 - Law banning Assault rifles is unconstitutional.
New Jersey v. Bruck 2021 - Large Capacity Magazine bans are constitutional.

 

[jmorris]

You could minor in political science and not figure out the full scope of how and why they pick the cases they do. Details that might seem insignificant actually matter a lot.

 

[bearcreek]

@Durango_Dave Need to read the rules for these forums before posting. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/thr-legal-forum-guidelines-read-before-posting.796448/ This thread is gonna get shut down as soon as a mod sees it.

 

[Durango_Dave]

You could minor in political science and not figure out the full scope of how and why they pick the cases they do. Details that might seem insignificant actually matter a lot.

The US has checks and balances. Lawmakers can't make laws that are unconstitutional. But there's a problem, a BIG problem. The supreme court doesn't or can't walk into a legislative session and say "this law is unconstitutional and must be blocked NOW!"
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on US laws until they go into affect and rise through the courts. Even then they don't always rule on laws that never should have gone into effect.

 

[jmorris]

Lawmakers can't make laws that are unconstitutional.

Sure they can, they do it all the time (R's and D's)

 

[bearcreek]

The US has checks and balances. Lawmakers can't make laws that are unconstitutional. But there's a problem, a BIG problem. The supreme court doesn't or can't walk into a legislative session and say "this law is unconstitutional and must be blocked NOW!"
The Supreme Court doesn't rule on US laws until they go into affect and rise through the courts. Even then they don't always rule on laws that never should have gone into effect.

That system is broken though. The lawmakers routinely make unconstitutional laws and the SC routinely overlooks them or rules that those laws are constitutional.

 

[Durango_Dave]

@Durango_Dave Need to read the rules for these forums before posting. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/thr-legal-forum-guidelines-read-before-posting.796448/ This thread is gonna get shut down as soon as a mod sees it.

The rules you linked say "how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were."
That's exactly what I made sure this thread would cover.
I said "My question to everyone is not what the Supreme Court should do."

 

[bearcreek]

The rules you linked say "how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were."
That's exactly what I made sure this thread would cover.
I said "My question to everyone is not what the Supreme Court should do."

You're asking what we "think will happen". The legal forum isn't for guessing.

 

[Durango_Dave]

The legal forum isn't for guessing.

Guessing is not necessary. I have cited 6 specific court cases. Jmorris has pointed out how the Supreme Court only picks certain cases to hear. All this is keeping with the rules. If an admin disagrees with me, so be it. I won't be upset if this thread is shut down but I think it's mainly up to the responses that people post. And to that I don't see anyone posting what they think the law should be or what the courts should do.

 

[Homerboy]

When a Supreme Court ruling can be so easily subverted like what just happened in NY, the Supreme Court is meaningless. Imagine if the abortion ruling went the other way, and abortion was upheld as it had been for nearly 50 years. Imagine if 15 of the 50 states said “we don’t care what the courts say, you can’t have an abortion”, or better yet, if they said “ok. You can have an abortion. But first you have to get three approvals by a psychiatrist, pay exorbitant fees to schedule an appointment, take sex Ed classes before you can have it, and pay an abortion tax”. The country would melt down.

 

[bearcreek]

Guessing is not necessary. I have cited 6 specific court cases. Jmorris has pointed out how the Supreme Court only picks certain cases to hear. All this is keeping with the rules. If an admin disagrees with me, so be it. I won't be upset if this thread is shut down but I think it's mainly up to the responses that people post. And to that I don't see anyone posting what they think the law should be or what the courts should do.

"Guess" we'll find out.

I think (if I had to guess) that the divide between different states will continue to get more significant.

 

[GEM]

Certainly not a lawyer but I've analyses that the Court likes to take Circuit Splits. That is unlikely because the Blue Purple states put in bans. However, the Red states don't get ban cases because they don't ban them. Thus there isn't a pro vs anti circuit split unless some blue state overturns a state ban. That seems unlikely. Scotus could take a case without a split but they seem reluctant to do that (God knows why).

They have had plenty of chances to take an AWB case, support a TRO against a ban from a lower court judge but quashed by that Circuit - but they don't.

 

[Durango_Dave]

Certainly not a lawyer but I've analyses that the Court likes to take Circuit Splits. That is unlikely because the Blue Purple states put in bans. However, the Red states don't get ban cases because they don't ban them. Thus there isn't a pro vs anti circuit split unless some blue state overturns a state ban. That seems unlikely. Scotus could take a case without a split but they seem reluctant to do that (God knows why).

Where have I heard that before?
It was here:

 

[Durango_Dave]

Lawmakers can't make laws that are unconstitutional.

Sure they can, they do it all the time (R's and D's)

You're missing my point or taking me out of context. We have checks and balances but not until a law is created, it goes into effect and then is challenged and raises through the courts.

Our checks and balances cannot prevent an unconstitutional law from being enacted.

 

[rust collector]

Closing for reasons previously noted.