SCOTUS Punts on ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have left many of us reeling. After a series of favorable rulings, outcomes from this week have hit particularly hard.

Washington Gun Law TV’s President, William Kirk, broadcasted from Security Gun Club, sharing the news with the community.

Kirk, reflecting the sentiment of many, didn’t mince words. “I’m just going to be real honest. This is a very, very disappointing day, not a totally shocking day, but yeah, we really took one on the chin here.”

The Supreme Court denied petitions related to the “assault weapon” ban in Illinois.

SEE ALSO: First Look: SIG Sauer P365 Fuse

Kirk explained, “The reason, as many speculated, including here on this channel and other colleagues in the YouTube universe, is that these cases had not reached the level of maturity. They were still in what’s called an interlocutory phase, which is a fancy lawyer word for saying the game’s not completely over; you’re trying to appeal in the third quarter here, and that is not typically the posture in which a case will be accepted for review by SCOTUS.”

Justice Thomas, known for his strong Second Amendment support, surprisingly wrote the opinion denying certiorari.

“There is a lot of powerful language that Justice Thomas uses to describe why this is an absolutely horrific ruling and why the Seventh Circuit has a long way to go to get this right.,” Kirk noted.

Thomas wrote:

“If the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can and should review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit the Seventh Circuit to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

The Court also vacated and remanded cases concerning nonviolent felons and cannabis users, such as the Range and Daniels cases, back to lower courts.

This aligns with the findings in United States v. Rahimi. Kirk highlighted the skepticism surrounding these developments.

Kirk noted:

“What’s likely to change? Nothing. Just take a look at what happens when we GVR (grant, vacate, remand) everything out of Bruen. Remember, four cases got GVR in one day, and how many of those cases changed their rulings post-Bruen? None. What this means is these cases will get delayed by those who do not want to advance this cause, and individuals with old nonviolent felonies or other old criminal convictions precluding them from exercising their rights will continue to live in this situation for the foreseeable future.”

Looking ahead, Kirk advised paying attention to the case of Washington State versus Gator Guns, a challenge to Washington State’s “high-capacity” magazine ban.

“By early 2025, we may see a mature case ripe for Supreme Court review,” he suggested.

Despite the setbacks, Kirk remains committed to educating gun owners.

Remember, part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you,” he reminded viewers.

The 2A community’s fight for Second Amendment rights continues, undeterred by the latest judicial hurdles.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***

MC HIT | http://10.20.60.240/SearchResults.ashx/?format=json&sold=0&sort=listingstartdate&og=1&keyword=Henry&cid=&numberperpage=10&pagenum=1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • inland July 6, 2024, 4:52 pm

    hi iam ok but why?

  • JJ Karn July 5, 2024, 4:06 pm

    Remember, part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you,” he reminded viewers.

    Even if you are in violation of the law through no change in your behavior and no fault of your own? How, exactly, does that work?

    • Ocean Dragon July 7, 2024, 8:56 pm

      You really don’t understand how this works? Or are you just playing *umb? If you had 100 people who legally owned a particular firearm and then 20 of those people committed crimes with their guns, certain jurisdictions may want to ban that gun from all people just to error safety on all people. So sometimes the foolishness and irresponsibility of the few people may affect the 80% of the law abiding people.

  • Mauser6863 July 5, 2024, 11:13 am

    The Supreme Court doesn’t like to consider cases before they are decided. They want a complete record to consider. If you have watched the Supreme Court for awhile, you should not have been surprised by these decisions.

  • Matthew Hudson July 5, 2024, 10:08 am

    Here’s the deal. I’m getting a bit sick of asking the government to regulate itself. Granted, we have a SCOTUS who seems to be on our side, but that’s not true in any form or fashion…. they are on their own side, and the difference between some rights and no rights is one person. The right to bear arms is far to important a right for any government to have control of it, even in a positive way, because that can shift on attitudes and a news story.
    The right to bear arms predates the US Constitution. The 2nd and 9th and 10th all confirm that it was a right retained by the people and never enumerated. It belongs to US, look in the mirror, it’s YOUR right, not Thomas or Gorsch or Sotomayor.

    When we go to the courts, we are in essence asking the same government who illegally stole the right to give it back. “Look what they did over there, stop them for me…” Because you really expect them to do that?
    The Heller decision was one of the most disgusting abuses of power I have ever seen. They incorporated the 2nd under the 14th, granting the government power over the right, on paper. Now, they can decide what is and is not allowed. You were bent over and celebrated the rape after it was done. You were ROBBED. They did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and instead of being bold and going after then with the 9th, the attorneys played the game and now they do have subject matter jurisdiction. It SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT CASE BASED OFF OF THE CONCEPT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION and COPYRIGHT LAW!

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The right to bear arms was retained by the people. The Constitution does not play into the right at all, AT ALL. It is a right we own, not the government. Begging the government to deal with the government because you are butthurt over the government doing something the government shouldn’t do, and expecting the government to smack itself… is STUPID. The right belongs to US.

    The case should have read, “Comes the matter before the court of the federal/state government exceeding it’s authority, and the request for it to cease and desist. The government has no subject matter jurisdiction over the right to bear arms, and that includes firearms. Any law written to regulate the ownership, sale or purchase of any arms, including guns, is invalid on it’s face and must be ruled extra-constitutional and unenforceable.” If they court refuses to hear it, then the next action is to IGNORE THE LAW. It is invalid. It has no force. It’s written on a myth.
    Stop seeking the court to do your damned job. They right belongs to you, and if you want it, then you have to defend it.

  • Kevin July 5, 2024, 9:52 am

    Plain and simple, the Framer’s at the time had to deal with musket’s and flint locked pistols, and cannon’s which anyone could own , in case of self defense or more over to over throw a Tyrannical Government with. With just that now we couldn’t over throw the Local McDonald’s. You know dam good and well a new constitutional convention would allow everyone to own enough high powered weapon’s to over throw a Communist Government like Biden’s. They would allow us to have large capacity rifles with grenade launcher’s on them, and hand grenades. Also a few other items to do what we could to take over a crooked government, in which we live in now. How ever we don’t have the right equiptment to do it, which makes the Biden government extremely dangerous!

  • John July 5, 2024, 9:46 am

    Sounds to me like the Supreme Court did exactly what they are supposed to do. If the court allows cases that have not gone through the process, as cumbersome as that may be, we’d need a hundred Supreme Courts to adjudicate cases as everyone would jump directly to that court. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a horrible law perpetrated by one of the worst state governments in the country. A state which, by the way, is losing around 200,000 taxpaying conservatives and businesses a year.

Send this to a friend