For many gun-rights advocates, the desire to have the U.S. Supreme Court to finally hear a case involving an “assault weapons” ban is at the top of the list. Having the court rule once and for all that such bans are unconstitutional would likely put an end to all the constant state and federal shenanigans involving modern semi-automatic rifles.
To that end, the National Rifle Association recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to consider the constitutionality of such bans in the case Snope v. Brown. In the brief, the NRA argued that the Fourth Circuit, in upholding Maryland’s ban on such firearms, contradicted Supreme Court precedent, especially ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the court held that common arms cannot be banned.
“Under Heller, this case is simple: Because Maryland bans common semiautomatic rifles—including the most popular rifle in America—the ban violates the Second Amendment,” the brief stated. “But the Fourth Circuit, dissatisfied with this Court’s ‘ill-conceived popularity test,’ invented its own test. The Fourth Circuit’s test contradicts Heller at every turn.”
Among other points, the NRA brief argued than in considering the Maryland ban the 4th Circuit required that plaintiffs prove that arms are commonly used for self-defense, despite Heller establishing that all bearable arms are presumptively protected, limited the Second Amendment to self-defense, despite Heller recognizing that hunting, training and community defense are protected purposes, and excludes weapons that the court deemed unsuitable for self-defense, despite Heller holding that the People decide which arms are protected.
The brief further argued that the 4th Circuit also counted for commonality only instances in which the weapon is actively employed in self-defense, despite Heller holding that possession alone is dispositive, excluded weapons ‘most useful in military service,’ despite Heller elucidating that its test applies regardless of the weapon’s suitability for military use, and allowed common weapons to be banned if they are dangerous, despite Heller holding that common weapons cannot be banned.
Additionally, the brief argued that the 4th Circuit also fell short in its historical analysis to prove such a ban has precedent.
“In its historical analysis, the Fourth Circuit did not identify a tradition of banning common weapons,” the brief stated. “Instead, the court determined that an assortment of lesser restrictions—including laws regulating the manner of carry or forbidding brandishing—established a tradition allowing governments to ‘do something’ about particular weapons. This supposed tradition, the court decided, justifies prohibiting common arms. But if that were the case, the handgun ban would have been upheld in Heller.”
In the end, the NRA is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and right the wrongs perpetuated by the 4th Circuit.
“It is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents,” the brief concluded. “Yet the Fourth Circuit rejected this Court’s common use test—deriding it as an ‘ill-conceived popularity test’ that ‘leads to absurd consequences’—and replaced it with a test directly contrary to this Court’s precedents. The Court should grant the Petition for Certiorari to reaffirm its precedents and restore the right of Americans to possess common weapons.”
Again the “Gun” and only the “Gun” is Center X in the courtroom. It would be a glorious day when one of the so called Defenders of the Second Amendment has an opening statement that includes Defining Gun Control by its History instead of silently allowing an Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide to stay hidden in the shadows.
TRUMP/VANCE 2024.
“To that end, the National Rifle Association recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to consider the constitutionality of such bans in the case Snope v. Brown.”
If Mark N. is reading this, is this case complete, and ready for review, or must other things happen before the current court will weigh in on it?
Yes. The case is complete with a final judgment entered in the Circuit Court, making it ripe for review. This case was originally finalled and appealed to SCOTUS but reversed by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Bruen. So there are no barriers to review except SCOTUS itself. If what the NRA says is true, it sounds like a good case for review and a thorough slap down.
The NRA could have done this back in 1989 when California banned all semi-auto “assault weapons” or as us old farts correctly called them “para-military” type semi-auto rifles. As usual the NRA is a day late and a dollar short!
District of Columbia v. Heller was in 2008. Since this is predicated on Heller and supported by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), the NRA could NOT have done this back in 1989.
Be grateful that it is being done now.
If the NRA had gotten their way, Dick Heller would have never made it to the Supreme Court, much less won.
Heller’s case was financed by Robert Levy of the Cato Institute, and argued by Alan Gura. The NRA tried to jump on the train and substitute their own plaintiffs, all of whom lost.
Why don’t you go on “The View” and tell those harpies all about the NRA Slap.
It was not a total ban. Some arms were banned by name, the rest by “features.” A thousand and one work-arounds rapidly followed. I have an AR rifle which is fully compliant with California law, and is not a registered “assault weapon.” Since the “assault weapon registration ” fiasco, there have been no new efforts to ban them outright.
Pistols and shotguns are also at issue for several of the states awb’s. 475 widely should not be unavailable when a modified desert eagle is good to go.
48 comments for the State Texas Fair. 5 here(6 with this). In Texas all you need to do is don’t go to the Fair & spend $ there! Keep it up NRA🙄
Paid shills may be off for the weekends and I would imagine people are either out for nice weather or dealing with that horrendous flooding in the south east. With that said hopefully will see something this decade re AWB (and others) in the supreme court.
First get rid of AWB. Next get rid of the entire NFA.
Remembering Kris Kristofferson…
Connect the h in the link below, click off the ad…
h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=gPGuUHNT7U4&feature=shared
Kris ended every show with this song…
h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=AZDe-Kix8co&feature=shared
Captain Kris Kristofferson (USAR) earned his Ranger tab and became a helicopter pilot in the Army. He turned down a teaching appointment at West Point in order to pursue his musical career.
Like many old soldiers, he clearly saw the folly of the Republicans’ imperial war of conquest in southwest Asia:
“Bombin’ Baghdad back into the Stone Age
Around the clock non-stop
Killed them in their homes and on their highways
Then after a decade of crippling sanctions, we decided to do it all over again
Fighting terrorism“
He was a Rhodes scholar who was willing to learn the reality of the world:
“I saw a clip of Muhammad Ali the other day, this clip of him speaking out about Vietnam and refusing to go over there. I wasn’t really paying attention to all that at the time and I thought he was wrong to do that . . . just like most people in the country did.
But I can see it clearer now. I admire him so much. He became a symbol for a lot of people back then and at great expense. I think people have a responsibility to speak out on things that they feel are wrong. But it’s easier for me than for Muhammad. I don’t have the same risk. They can’t take my title away because I don’t have one and they aren’t catching me in my prime either.“
Who’s funding a fascist dictator to fight another fascist dictator right now?
biden/harris. Who ended the Viet Nam war? Nixon.
People could afford gas, food and rent when Trump was in office. Not so with biden/harris.
You see miner, one of the problems with an appeal to authority argument is that authorities can disagree. I have two full-bird colonels in the family who would disagree with Captain Kristofferson. So who is correct? It becomes a pissing contest with you in the middle. Dude, you’re gonna smell like urine for a week, and whitetail bow seasons are beginning to open. Bad form and bad timing, both in the same post.
“I have two full-bird colonels in the family who would disagree with Captain Kristofferson“
So which of those colon-els was an Oxford Rhodes scholar like Kris?
And they think the United States was justified in bombing Baghdad?
Donald Trump thinks bombing Baghdad was a mistake:
“Trump hits Bush: Invading Iraq ‘the single worst decision ever made’
BY MAX GREENWOOD 03/03/18 08:05 PM ET
President Trump blasted former President George W. Bush on Saturday over the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, calling it “the single worst decision ever made.”
Speaking at a closed-door event with Republican donors in Florida, Trump mocked Bush’s intellect and compared his decision to invade Iraq to “throwing a big fat brick into a hornet’s nest.”
“Here we are, like the dummies of the world, because we had bad politicians running our country for a long time,” Trump said, according to CNN, which obtained a recording of the president’s remarks.
“That was Bush. Another real genius. That was Bush,” Trump joked. “That turned out to be wonderful intelligence. Great intelligence agency there.”
You do know, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, a project that was financed by the Saudi Arabian royal family.
I haven’t mentioned my opinion. I simply pointed out your use of a logical fallacy, and you doubled down by adding Trump to your list of experts. Now you got 4 guys aiming at each other with you in the middle…
Sounds like an argument in support of Trump.
Are your meds working today?
Yes, the Second Amendment is Designed to Protect You From Government.
“Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses that exact issue because the National Association for Gun Right has raised that in their amicus brief in support of the petition for review by the Supreme Court in the matter of Snope v. Brown. Is it possible that the Second Amendment actually demands that we have all the same weaponry as what the government has?”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORZwhMDzEM
This is What a First Aggressor Looks Like.
“Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses one of the important exceptions to Washington’s self-defense laws, the “first aggressor standard.” Under this legal concept, a person who instigates the fight or the initial person to provoke conflict, cannot later claim self-defense. today we focus on a Florida man, who clearly lacks emotional control, to demonstrate just how the First Aggressor standard works in real life.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0hZ94duAo
Small annoying critters and cans beware …. Crosman’s New Full Auto M1 BB Gun.
h ttps://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-news/hell-yes-crosmans-new-full-auto-m1-bb-gun/
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
. As opined in US v. Miller (1939) SCOTUS unanimously (8-0, 1 abstention) agreed that the introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment specifically protects arms of efficacy to the military for the militia which is comprised of the People.
“…would likely put an end to all the constant state and federal shenanigans involving modern semi-automatic rifles.”
And the shenanigans involving *antique* semiauto rifles. Eg, the Model 1907 Win in .351SL, which was a good one…
Shotguns open doors and shoot down drones, today. Bearable military arms…
Comments are closed.