For years, we've wanted the Supreme Court to agree to hear a case on bans of so-called assault weapons. They've continually kicked the can down the road, and that's been a significant problem for the gun rights community.
However, everything is about to change.
In the Court's list of cases, two in particular came up that deal with assault weapon bans.
Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the latter of which is tied with National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, both (all?) revolve around the concept of an assault weapon ban. And, as of today, the Supreme Court has merged the two cases into one and granted certiorari on them.
In short, they're going to hear about assault weapons, and unless something very strange happens during this case, it's likely to cause them to be overturned nationwide.
This becomes especially important as more and more jurisdictions look at not just assault weapon bans, but bans on other guns as well. Several have banned Glocks, and not because of the weapon itself, but because you can put an illegal device on it and do illegal things. While that's not the question in these cases, it's not impossible that the Supreme Court decides on hardware bans in such a way that also impacts the Glock bans.
Still, I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Broad rulings that go beyond the scope of the case before them aren't the norm, and while it's possible they'll do something differently, and I hope they will, they probably won't.
Following the birthright citizenship case, though, some black-pilled doomers are already anticipating that the Court will find in favor of the bans. I can't rule that out definitively, but the truth is that even if that were to happen, what would that change? It's not like a lack of a ruling has stopped any state inclined to control guns from doing so, and pro-gun states aren't going to start banning things simply because the Court said they're constitutional, so the worst-case scenario is that we keep the status quo. The people most likely to get screwed are people like me in states that are turning blue or that just flipped hardcore anti-gun like Cam.
Yeah, that would suck, but I don't see it as that likely, either.
We'll know more when the Court actually hears arguments, and we'll have all the amicus briefs from both sides of the argument, which should provide a certain degree of entertainment as we behold the worst arguments humanly possible from the gun control side, but for now, this is good news and will likely remain good news all the way through and well after the decision is handed down.
For now, we'll have to wait and see when the case is scheduled to be heard, then we'll get down to the nitty-gritty of who says what and when during the actual arguments. It's going to be interesting to see how anti-gun attorneys frame banning the modern musket while still claiming it's completely within the Second Amendment to do so, even if you take the whole militia clause as anything but a framing device.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member