Posted on 07/05/2026 8:40:37 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008 established that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, unalienable—God-given--right that does indeed acknowledge, but not grant, the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind slowly, and it was not until 2022 that the Court handed down its Bruen decision, which affirmed that the right to bear arms extends to wherever Americans might be. What good is a right that can only be exercised in one’s home or on one’s property? Where is self-defense more likely, in one’s kitchen or out there in the wild, wild world?
While the Court did not define every issue involved, it did note that arms in “common use” are presumptively constitutional.
During those 14 years and beyond, anti-liberty/gun zealots wrote all manner of plainly unconstitutional laws to harass, bankrupt, and imprison gun makers and citizens in the expectation that if they made gun ownership too expensive, Americans would give up their guns. The opposite happened, and the more they tried to violate the Constitution, the more guns Americans bought, more than a million a month for many years.
Among the tactics employed against common firearms is labeling them “assault weapons.” And what might an “assault weapon” be? Generally, any gun anti-liberty/gun zealots want to ban. Specifically, they’ve focused on the exceedingly common AR-15, the most popular semiautomatic rifle in America, accounting for well over 20 million.
Graphic: Common AR-15 variant. Author.
SNIP
Now, to the horror of the self-imagined elite, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two assault weapon ban cases in its next term:
SCOTUS will consolidate Viramontes v. Cook County, a Seventh Circuit (Illinois) case and Grant v. Higgins from the Second Circuit (Connecticut).
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
IMO, if you can vote (”of the people”) and physically carry it in your arms, you can under the Constitution carry it in your arms.
Amendment II doesn’t call for a popularity contest.
The typical AR is just a semi-auto rifle, like your hunting rifle. Except, to some it looks scary. I believe the Supreme Court will rule that it’s legal to possess, but they will also rule that government (feds, states) can put restrictions on magazine capacity.
just show her the size of the round, compared to several others that are not even considered... Hehehe, she’ll say its so small, it couldn’t hurt anyone as much as those big ones, LOL
Cannons were common at the time of the American Revolution, as were warships that the Continental Congress had to lease from private owners.
And Colonial settlers had better weapons, with their rifles, than the military had with their muskets. Since today's military is issued M-16s, M-60s, and M2s, the civilian population could certainly own better.
Do you know how AJ Barrett has decided on 2nd Amendment cases?
Compared to AJ Thomas?
Compared to AJ Alito?
Any idea?
In case of Pirates!.........
...maybe.....I am not at all confident that the so-called
conservative justices will do the right thing...after all,
there has been so much hype and mis-information about the
AR-15 platform (”Gee....after all, the “AR” in AR-15 DOES
stand for “Assault Rifle,” doesn’t it....??!!!”) and drivel
such as that....I love my AR-15 and they can come and take
it out of my cold, stiff hands if they had to....
The term “Assault Rifle” is addressed in the article. I did not have room for it in the 300 words I am allowed to excerpt.
But as long as Trump remains President, we will have the Justice Department filing lawsuits against states and cities as “civil rights” violations of US citizens. It is amazing that it has taken this long for the 2nd Amendment to be recognized as a Civil Rights issue.
Is there someone who DOESN’T own an AR?
When you see AR-15, know it stands for “ArmaLite Rifle, Model 15,” named after the company that developed it in the late 1950s.
Adios AR15s. Those stupid Tuesdays and Roberts will unalive the right to own them.
I hunted pigs in Texas. My AR platform rifle in 308 was so light I could carry it on an all day hike and barely know it was there. My bolt action Winchester, however, was twice the weight. Sunk in a canoe accident though.
I posted facts to refute the uncertainty.
Rather than acknowledging this very positive fact set regarding the topic of discussion, you endeavor tacitly to make this a SCOTUS thread.
If you want to take up their voting record on other cases and other civil rights, I’m happy to do that. We will probably agree that they’re shaky on many fronts. Indeed while her and Roberts’ Martin-Quinn Scores versus the lefties are miles apart, they are trending lefty.. At the same time, while squishy in some parts, ACB is solid elsewhere and certainly better than RBG. Roberts is a disappoint, no doubt.
Only God knows what tomorrow brings. But in this front, they’re NOT shaky at best.
And yes....this issue is a SCOTUS issue and the overall reliability of the two in question.
Oh, and the title of the thread was the Supreme Court will decide....
The thread isn't limited to just the 2A.
I also note others are questioning the reliability of the court.
Like the EM 50
I want one in all black trim.
Is anyone really thinking it is good to chance this Roberts and Barret.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.