Next year when SCOTUS makes a final ruling on AR15 bans, assuming they rule in favor for ownership and common use, I have a couple questions:

1. Some states or jurisdictions will still try to find a way to ban them. In those cases what legal arguments are made in favor of said bans, and how could they continue with their shenanigans after the SCOTUS said you can't ban them ?

2. For those States and Local governments who recently banned them, like the State of Virginia for example, will that mean if SCOTUS declares them legal for common use that the State will need to repeal the bans BEFORE residents can own, transfer, and use them, or will they have complete and instant relief without any State interference the instant the SCOTUS declares bans unconstitutional ?

3. How likely and under what circumstances can State and Local jurisdictions just say F*^%Y$#, and continue with all restrictions, completely ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and continuing to persecute innocent gun owners ?

4. If #3 happens, what are the consequences to those in State & Local Governments, and their Administrators and governmental executives who may ignore the SCOTUS ruling and continue persecuting their state gun owners?

So how would all that work if SCOTUS rules for complete restoration and relief at the Federal level ?

I don’t have the balls to answer that honestly.

It’s a waste of mental energy to speculate on something SCOTUS hasn’t even ruled on, imo.

quote:

3. How likely and under what circumstances can State and Local jurisdictions just say F*^%Y$#, and continue with all restrictions, completely ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and continuing to persecute innocent gun owners ?

I can say with some degree of certainty, that the grabbers here in Washington state will not go quietly. There will be lots of kicking and screaming and they'll make a mess of the RCWs before they're done. It's going to be a confusing, convoluted mess and will probably take some time before I can buy an SKS or whatever again.

quote:

4. If #3 happens, what are the consequences to those in State & Local Governments, and their Administrators and governmental executives who may ignore the SCOTUS ruling and continue persecuting their state gun owners?

I can also say with a degree of certainty that nothing of consequence will happen to those politicians here. There's enough Blue No Matter Who voters now that the Democrats don't have to worry about their jobs. There may be some shifting of people, but I can almost guarantee that the majority of those responsible will have the same job the next day.

I’m not going to hold my breath.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
It’s a waste of mental energy to speculate on something SCOTUS hasn’t even ruled on, imo.

The SCOTUS has granted cert on this based on the merits of the argument, and based on past rulings, the 2A community is expecting a good outcome:

https://www.jurist.org/news/20...ssault-weapons-bans/

^^^^ If you want to dream and count the chickens before they hatch, that’s fine with me. Until there’s a final ruling, everything is just hoping and wishing. I will never forget Roberts and Obamacare.

“Common use” and “Extraordinary lethality”

The military doesn’t recognize them as military weapons due to no selective fire capability.

The “civilian” world refers to them as “Modern Sporting Rifles” (MSR). With approx 30-32 MILLION of them in circulation.

2024 FBI data shows 419 homicide deaths where a “rifle” was the weapon used. The FBI does not track “semi-automatic rifles” as a separate category. Instead, its homicide data groups all rifles together (bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action, and semi-automatic). Other sources estimate semi-auto rifles account for about half of those homicides and “AR-15” would be a smaller subset of the semi-auto rifle estimate.

Given their popularity and the number in circulation, they account for an infinitesimal number of gun related crime.

There are somewhere between 450,000 and 725,000 AR-15’s issued to local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. LE usually calls them a “Personal Defensive Weapon” (PDW) or “Patrol Carbine”.

Sportsmen use them for hunting, predator control, competitive shooting, etc.

While not used as frequently as handguns, citizens do use them for self-defense.

Hundreds of manufacturers and models have homogenized into a ubiquitous, defacto common term to describe them as an “AR-15” even though the term was originally a trademarked name for a specific manufacturer and model of rifle. The left and their biased media co-opted “AR” to come up with the “Assault Weapon” misnomer. “Assault” is a verb describing an action.

You can assault someone with pretty much anything from a ballpoint pen to a Buick. It is the person doing the assault, not the inanimate object they choose to do it with.

Facts and common sense point to them being one of, if not the MOST, common firearm in civilian (non-military) use ever.


“Common use” - Don’t need a law degree to figure that out.

“Extraordinary lethality” - Absolutely no data to support, and available data refutes.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I will never forget Roberts and Obamacare.

Yeah, talk about a gut punch.

I know this much: I'm staying in Arizona, and if and when the grabbers start their shit here, I'll fight it all the way. As you say, the rest is a waste of mental energy.

It's a given that the left will never give up. Not on banning guns for people not in the government, not on redistributing wealth, not on using every method they can think of to gain more power. It is who they are.

Take each new fight as it comes.

re #4< the DOJ (Federal) has initiated a lawsuit against California related to it's restrictive handgun roster and it's mag ban. Oops: Glock ban, not mag ban.

 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...ornia-halt-glock-ban 

quote:

You can assault someone with pretty much anything from a ballpoint pen to a Buick.

Or a pencil.....

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
It’s a waste of mental energy to speculate on something SCOTUS hasn’t even ruled on, imo.

Yep. Mental masturbation.

quote:

1. Some states or jurisdictions will still try to find a way to ban them. In those cases what legal arguments are made in favor of said bans, and how could they continue with their shenanigans after the SCOTUS said you can't ban them ?

States, cities can still pass laws contrary to the Supreme Court decision. Then we, the gun owners, have to pay lawyers to go to court again and then as tax payers we get to pay the lawyers we are fighting against.

I was afraid of that, par for the course.

I wonder if the court rules favorably on bans if this will have any effect on California’s DOJ approved list.