We're all disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision not to grant cert in the Snopes case. We all want to see assault weapon bans die a horrible and fiery, but mostly peaceful death. Yet, we were denied.
But what if that wasn't necessarily a bad thing? Allow me to explain.
First, yes, I want these dead, and I'm disappointed about Snopes. Nothing has changed for me on that one, but a recent op-ed brought some things to mind that made me wonder if maybe, just maybe, there's a good reason we shouldn't be too disappointed right now.
The op-ed comes from Newsmax and was written by Michael Dorstewitz.
The court always cautions the public not to read anything into their decisions denying review of a particular case. That being said, let's read more into their decision.
Although it takes four votes to agree to hear a case, it takes a majority of the court, five members, to decide a case. Although Kavanaugh voted against review, he practically made the case that AR-15-style rifles legal according to decades of precedent.
Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong to assume that Kavanaugh would likely rule that these weapons are legal as being "in common use" for lawful purposes. But maybe he's voting against review because he doesn't want the court to rule that states may ban them.
Until he and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch can convince Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Barrett to leave the "Dark Side," he'll continue to vote with them.
As Thomas, and even Kavanaugh, demonstrate, it's not rocket science. AR-15-style rifles and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are in common use for lawful purposes and therefore should be protected under the Second Amendment.
That actually makes some sense. If a case doesn't get cert, there can't be a Supreme Court precedent set, which means it's not something that has to be undone later on. It sucks, but it sucks less if we don't close the door on assault weapon bans being declared unconstitutional to any degree.
I'd imagine Barrett would be willing to vote with Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, but I honestly can't say that definitively. Both her and Roberts sided with the majority on Bruen, though, which should suggest they'd both agree.
If they don't, though, kicking the can down the road a bit until that changes might actually be the smarter play.
Plus, while we had two cases that looked at assault weapon ban-related matters--both the weapons themselves and standard capacity magazine bans--there might be a better opportunity coming down the road.
Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told Newsmax's Carl Higbie Tuesday that at least one more case is coming down the pike that may be even more appropriate for the court to take up. It involves both an AR-15 and a magazine ban.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that Snopes was punted so the Court could hear this other case. I have no evidence to suggest they would, and it would be stupid for them to do so simply because there's always a chance that the case doesn't actually get to them. It probably will, especially now, but you can't bank on that.
Yet this one case could solve two problems in one precedent. That's not a terrible thing in and of itself.
So again, while I'm disappointed with what happened with Snopes, it doesn't mean we should all take the black pill and just assume that we're never going to see these bans overturned. I truly believe it's a no-brainer for the Court, as both Thomas and Kavanaugh made pretty clear, even as the case was denied cert.
So it's just a matter of time.
For those of us who remember the days of the 1996 Assault Weapon Ban, we can deal. We don't have to like it by any stretch of the imagination, but we should be able to limp on for a year or two.
