Posted on 07/11/2026 6:09:15 AM PDT by MtnClimber
With good reason, AR-15 style rifles remain America’s most popular firearm.
While most Americans probably remain unaware, that very popularity protects it against infringement under the Second Amendment.
In welcome recent news, the United States Supreme Court now appears poised to do just that in its next term.
By agreeing to review state and local prohibitions on AR-15 platform rifles, the Court possesses the perfect opportunity to reaffirm a Second Amendment principle that should’ve been clear all along: Government cannot ban an entire class of firearms that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans own for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
The constitutional question for the Court to resolve is surprisingly straightforward. The Second Amendment obviously protects the right of the people to keep and bear “Arms,” which the Supreme Court has already defined to include firearms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
That principle wasn’t some afterthought or passing dicta — it was central to the Court’s landmark Second Amendment jurisprudence.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time,” contrasting “dangerous and unusual weapons.” He explained that historical tradition permits restrictions only on weapons that fall outside ordinary civilian ownership, specifically emphasizing that the Amendment protects those arms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Fourteen years later, Justice Clarence Thomas amplified and clarified that pivotal concept in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
Rejecting amorphous “balancing tests” that courts have employed to uphold countless infringements on the Bill of Rights over the decades, Justice Thomas wrote for the majority that “the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.'” Rather than allowing judges to weigh constitutional rights against specious policy preferences, the Court thus required governments going forward to demonstrate that firearm regulations are consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That “common use” standard is especially significant in the context of AR-15 rifles because the factual record is overwhelming.
Specifically, estimates consistently place civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles at well over 20 million nationwide. They are used every single day across the U.S. for home defense, target shooting, recreational competition, predator control, ranch work and hunting. Indeed, in a prior opinion respecting denial of certiorari review in another case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had observed that Americans possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s, and that they are legal in the overwhelming majority of states. That naturally suggests an upcoming legal conclusion that they’re thus “in common use” under the operative question in Heller.
Obviously, that reality presents Second Amendment restrictionists with a constitutional problem of their own making.
Namely, gun control advocates spent years insisting that AR-15s are excessively common in America, while arguing that they must therefore be prohibited. Supreme Court precedent, however, points in the opposite direction: Widespread lawful ownership offers a defining characteristic separating constitutionally protected arms from those that may historically be prohibited.
Indeed, the label “assault weapon” itself illustrates the weakness of restrictionists’ argument. It’s a political term rather than a technical one, typically applied to semiautomatic rifles based on cosmetic features rather than differences in fundamental operation. An AR-15 fires one round per trigger pull, but so do countless other semiautomatic firearms and even pistols. It’s not some sort of “machine gun,” and federal law has long restricted automatic weapons.
Second Amendment opponents will predictably argue that public safety concerns justify prohibitions on these firearms. The opposite, however, is actually true. Specifically, firearms are used far more often to deter crime than to commit murder, and it’s not even close.
In any event, constitutional rights simply aren’t contingent upon shifting political opinions about what government officials believe is in our best interest. First Amendment speech protections don’t disappear because politicians believe that someone might be offended, nor does the Fourth Amendment vanish because wholesale warrantless searches might improve public safety.
Bruen rejected that sort of biased interest-balancing, because constitutional guarantees shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary cost-benefit analysis. Governments must instead demonstrate that proposed restrictions are grounded in this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and broad prohibitions on the nation’s most popular rifle plainly fail that test.
The Court thus possesses an opportunity to provide much-needed clarity after years of resistance by lower courts that have struggled to reconcile modern “assault weapon” bans with Heller and Bruen. The answer shouldn’t be difficult. America’s most popular rifle is popular because millions of responsible, law-abiding citizens have freely chosen it for lawful purposes.
Under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, that widespread ownership is not a constitutional defect, as gun control advocates assert. It’s precisely why the Second Amendment protects it against infringement.
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
I want a DOUBLE A-10 - extra 30-mike and two extra engines to carry around app that badassery!
I want a DOUBLE A-10 - extra 30-mike and two extra engines to carry around app that badassery!
Oops, double post. But then again, maybe not?
I like the way you Think !
Any Idea what the Ammo Cost Is ?
I got a Heavy Trigger Finger.
9mm is a Quater a round and
5.56 under .50 cent ,
I figure 30mm should be Cheap !
.
Keepem’ Flying!
California had a Long List too.
I escaped with the Goods!
Adios Muchacho
RIIIIIIGHT....
According to the 2nd Amendment, the government can't ban any firearms, popular or not.
Completely legal. Transferable breach 75mm cheaper Destructive Device but you have to make your own ammo with Type 10 FFL/07 SOT. The 76mm is much more expensive as only a dozen guns on the registry, half of them Form 4 but in a Form 10 museum.
There is ammo available, Israeli made and US made in Central/South America, but its expensive and each round is $200.00 DD tax on top of the 20k gun. You can make your own ammo, target, steel, but you'll need a million or so for ATF Type 4 explosive magazine, tooling, etc.
NFA M1937 and M1919, and M2 machineguns run between 20k and 50k depending on MFG and status (C&R M2 by Catepillar 50k, Westinghouse M1917-40-50k, Firestone M37, 60k, ANM2s lots of fun, but fickle and 50k+, etc). If you make your own with 07/02, much cheaper, but not authentic.
As for the armor, US armor is alot more expensive since the Clinton armor ban. Shermans went from 100k in the 90s to 500k+ now. 750k-1mm for 100% authentic, fully gunned Sherman, and there are only 3-4 I know. $2mm for an "easy 8" totally restored and arm. German armor? Triple /Quadruple that price....
If you want armor, M20/M8s pretty cheap and 37mm guns+breeches avail. Lots of Steel (target) 37mm rounds avail. too.
Good luck. Like anything in America, anything is possible with the right permits, patience, and money. If serious Go here.
Wrong. Completely wrong. See above post.
The ban will not stand. The term “Assault Rifle” is made-up by the gun grabbers.
Biggest hastle is guns can't cross state lines, and you have to have BIG wide area of PRIVATE property to shoot them. Only like 10 armed birds in the sky, legally, Dillon of Dillon Aero owns 3. P40 Warhawk rearmed.
Almost. The term "assault weapon" was made up by Josh Sugarman of Handgun Control Inc (later Brady Center)
Quote: "Assault weapons"—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."- Circa Summer 1986 (while the McClure Volkmer Act was being debated)
"assault rifle" The term "assault rifle" is often attributed to Adolf Hitler, who used the German word "Sturmgewehr" to describe the MP 43, later known as the StG 44. The term "assault weapon" emerged later in the 1980s as part of the gun control debate, aiming to evoke public fear and shift focus from handguns to semi-automatic rifles.
I have a problem with the “in common use” argument because that would open the door for challenges whenever a new firearm is introduced or even a less commonly used firearm.
I would exclude chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from the list. But any weapon that is used by the infantry is not prohibited.
“...it will flatten any 1900s era brick 2 story shit house with ease.”
And throw a track, be immobilized buried in debris or fall into to the cellar.
The men who wrote the Second Amendment did not finish a hunting trip, they just finished liberating a Nation against Tyranny...
___________________
“To ban guns because the criminals use them is to tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and lawless.”
Lysander Spooner
___________________
The only reason why the government would want to disarm you after 247 years is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.
___________________
They’re going to keep creating mass shootings until you give up your guns.
___________________
Once you give up your guns, they’re going to kill you.
You know that right?
___________________
See WW1 & WW2 and the many wars prior that the enlighten europeons have been involved in. See Soviet Union, China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba etc etc where the people gave up their guns only to have dictators take over and kill millions of people.
___________________
muzzle loaders have .50 caliber round balls, bullets, shot : )
Go ahead and make my day sayeth the Minutemen.
___________________
Guns were used for hunting the British : )
“[S]hall not be infringed” is fairly easy for anyone to understand.”
The privilege of owning a weapon is already infringed. Federal law completely bans civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 1986, silencers in several states, and unserialized “ghost guns”.
State laws add further restrictions: AR-style rifles, “assault pistols,” and large-capacity magazines are heavily regulated or prohibited in states like California, New York, Illinois, Washington, and Massachusetts. So wishing to own and actually being legally owned are two different subjects.
And if a federal organization determines a law for their purposes, that doesn’t mean the states are required to.
A good description of what the supreme court does is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspx
The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it was left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx
But they have to stay within their path. They can say why something is unconstitutional, based upon federal law and the Constitution, but they can’t rewrite the law because that power belongs to congress and the state legislatures.
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that all federal legislative powers are vested only in Congress. Similarly, Article I, Section 4 (the Elections Clause) and Article IV recognize the authority of state legislatures to pass state-level laws, while the Tenth Amendment grants them residual lawmaking powers not delegated to the federal government.
wy69
“Like birthright citizenship?”
Remember, the court cannot rewrite law. If it’s in the Constitution and is not proven it is unconscionable, it is only the congress and/or the states’ legislatures that can rewrite a law or even add an amendment to the Constitution, congress only here. An example of this are the 18th and 21st amendments concerning the consumption of alcohol.
wy69
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.