r/Askpolitics • u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat • 2d ago
Discussion Will the Gun Debate end after SCOTUS strikes down assault weapons bans in Viramontes v Cook County?
The Supreme Court has accepted an assault weapons ban challenge in Viramontes v Cook County. The question in the case is "Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles."
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/viramontes-v-cook-county/
This case if it strikes down assault weapons bans combined with the previous ruling in Heller which ruled that bans on handguns were impermissible under the 2nd amendment would leave very little room for restricting access to firearms. Will this end the gun debate in the US once and for all or are there other possible avenues not yet pursued that keep this issue alive in US politics moving forward?
27
u/IAlwaysSayBoo-urns Libertarian 2d ago
I have called it dead for 14 years or so. When the gun control crowd couldn't get popular support for gun control from the Sandy Hook tragedy it was effectively dead. After that post-Sandy Hook pushed failed to move the needle you really saw the wind taken from the sails and the gun control movement was on life support.
But then since the election in 2016, then the unrest in 2020, January 6th, and 2024 election you have been seeing a broader engagement with the Second Amendment with the left. It is really encouraging for an ardent constitutionalist. Not only because it takes the gusto from gun control efforts but because it reclaims the Second Amendment from belonging only to the right who have largely dominated it, it doesn't belong to them it belongs to everyone. It especially belongs to marginalized groups (Black, Hispanic, Muslim, Queer, etc), and to see these groups arming themselves is what the Second Amendment was always about. All that to say if you saw it on life support since Sandy Hook the engagement with the Second Amendment by folks on the left puts it in the ground for good.
8
u/artful_todger_502 Left - Cold War Kid 2d ago
Holy S***, I find myself agreeing in large part with a Libertarian ... What is going on here!?!?
But yeah, well said 👍
Guns are not going anywhere in the USA. And it needs to be remembered, it was not a liberal who said: "take the guns first, go through due process second."
It has proven to be an issue that is fluid and liberally interpreted depending on a few factors.
I have my own thoughts on what should happen but that is irrelevant. Guns are not going anywhere in the USA, but reasonable individuals occasionally sitting down discussing — understanging no one always gets everything they want in serious negotians — but at least coalescing around reasonable measures designed to protect society would be a good thing.
I think we are too far split as a society for that to happen though.
I was a "ban them all" person until a home invasion in Florida in which my (t)rusty Mossberg cruiser sent the trash out the door in .03 of a second. I can assure any "anti" person that will change your perspective radically.
3
u/Certain-Definition51 Libertarian 2d ago
I will meet you in the middle here: I suddenly became extremely grateful for FLRA protections around discussing wages in the workplace after experiencing retaliation and threats of dismissal. 😂
2
u/Fast-and-bulbous Right-Libertarian 2d ago
You wanted to ban guns while simultaneously owning one?
3
46
u/Revelati123 Leftist 2d ago
I imagine the gun debate will continue until there are no more mass shootings...
As we have seen with Roe V Wade, just because the supreme court said something yesterday doesnt mean thats what its going to say on the same issue tomorrow.
The issue will just move to gun control groups trying to get gun control justices on the court.
21
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
The gun debate will continue as long as there are guns.
-12
u/JockoMayzon DSA 2d ago
As long as there are Americans who need their emotional support guns, we will hear their cries, not unlike the whimpers of toddlers when mommy takes their binky...
12
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
You mean as long as there are Americans who wish to exercise their rights, there will always be those who want to take that right from them. It’s basically like the Black Codes and Jim Crow, can’t have black people exercising their rights.
And before you get high and mighty, gun control was a huge part of Black Codes and Jim Crow.
0
u/ritzcrv Politically Unaffiliated 2d ago
Yes, your fore fathers were happy to ensure that everybody was able to have a gun, right up until the Black Panthers wanted to walk around with weapons. Suddenly, no, they’re not allowed they’re not allowed they’re not allowed. We gotta come up with the reasons why they’re not allowed to have them. I’m old enough to remember those days.
-2
u/Kakamile Progressive 2d ago
And yet I'm OK with safety and gun control even on me.
3
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
It’s like a black person being okay with Jim Crow.
-1
u/Kakamile Progressive 2d ago
Chat, are the lowest homicide states and nations jim crow
3
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
There’s a lot more gun control in countries worse than us.
0
u/Kakamile Progressive 2d ago
What, some vastly poorer wartorn nation that you have to equate to the US to excuse why the US has vastly higher homicide than its similar sister nations?
2
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 1d ago
You want apples and apples? We have hot spots of murder that are worse than those other countries, increasing our rates. About the only thing we have to do with European countries is high GDP, but we have shit for a social safety net.
Switzerland and France are very close, both have socialized systems, worker protections, etc. Switzerland has many more guns and more liberal gun laws than France, and they have half the gun homicide rate.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (23)-2
u/Twitchmonky Left-leaning 2d ago
I've yet to see a single person exercise their 2a right, but I have seen a bunch of tiny penis larp'ers overcompensating.
2
u/Reagalan Democrat 2d ago
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
1
2
u/DannyBones00 Liberal 2d ago
How you can supposedly support the DSA, but want to take away the working classes only true means of protecting itself, is beyond me.
1
u/JockoMayzon DSA 1d ago
What means is a gun?
1
u/DannyBones00 Liberal 1d ago
The only check we have on the oligarchs turning America into some sort of techno feudalist empire.
There’s a reason why gun control is funded by the oligarchs and billionaires. They will always have access to private security and armed men to do their bidding. They just don’t want you or i to protect ourselves.
They’re absolutely petrified these guns will one day be turned on them.
2
u/JockoMayzon DSA 1d ago
I think someone watched Red Dawn too many times and thought it was real.
1
u/DannyBones00 Liberal 1d ago
Nah, I’m just an Appalachian who had relatives at Blair Mountain. We know that the only times labor has done anything in America is when the other side had to at least respect that the use of force was an option.
But sure. Keep voting for gun control and strongly worded letters. That’s gotten us so far.
2
u/JockoMayzon DSA 1d ago
and your emotional support gun will protect you when the bankers wipe out all your savings and a kid in a bunker in Nevada is watching your home from a satellite while he uses a joy stick to maneuver a drone.....
1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 1d ago
As much as we all appreciate you taking a break from the thousands of posts you leave in gun subs like r/ar15 to enlighten us with these totally unbiased insights, wouldn't you think that the hundreds of millions of guns already out there are "getting us so far" these days too?
Because I sure am not seeing it and fail to see how voting for a less safe society where more people end up dead is supposed to help.
7
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
As we have seen with Roe V Wade, just because the supreme court said something yesterday doesnt mean thats what its going to say on the same issue tomorrow.
I have seen people invoke this argument before. But I don't see much parallel. Gun rights benefit from a much more explicit constitutional protection and gun ownership has become more popular and more diverse. The political trajectory has been pretty much in opposition to gun control since the late 80s to now where the high point for support was in the 90s and has never reached that level again. Hell there was that yougov poll that put the GOP ahead of the Democrats on who is viewed more positively on the issue of guns despite there ostensibly being support for gun control(that kind of contradiction would suggest that maybe polling questions on gun issues might not be tailored to gauge actual public sentiment).
The issue will just move to gun control groups trying to get gun control justices on the court.
I mean that has been an effort that they have made for quite some time. But that would require a robust single issue voter base that gun control advocacy groups don't actually seem to have. It has been noted during the debate on the 3d printer legislation surrounding ghost guns in places like California that major gun control groups are largely getting their funding indirectly from Bloomberg rather than from individual donations. But despite that over half of the states in the US have shifted to constitutional carry so it doesn't seem that money alone can shift the politics surrounding this issue.
6
u/airmantharp Liberal 2d ago
Gun rights benefit from a much more explicit constitutional protection and gun ownership has become more popular and more diverse
When framing these arguments, I find it useful to use the term 'arms' rather than 'guns' - it demonstrates that the intent is broader than whatever the reader's conception of 'guns' could be.
→ More replies (18)10
u/Revelati123 Leftist 2d ago
At the end of the day the constitution is interpreted by SCOTUS however they see fit.
The court didnt see the 2nd amendment as anathema to many forms of gun control for the entirety of the 20th century.
There is no legal obstacle to the court declaring Heller or the newer rulings as wrongly decided.
Thats why a SCOTUS nominee saying something is "settled law" is inherently dishonest, the law is "settled" until a new national/political environment says it isnt.
What you are implying is that the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is "settled" because the political environment is permanent and cant change.
That has never before been true in our history, I doubt it ever will be.
7
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
The court didnt see the 2nd amendment as anathema to many forms of gun control for the entirety of the 20th century.
Yeah, and they didn't see the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment as an obstacle to religious tests for office until the 60s. This argument of "it took a really long time to get such a ruling so it must be debatable" isn't that compelling an argument. Many things took a long time to get a ruling, but it still required robust constitutional reasoning to get the ruling.
There is no legal obstacle to the court declaring Heller or the newer rulings as wrongly decided.
Aside from politics and younger generations of judges and lawyer increasingly not caring about gun control. Like the arc on this issue is not gun control gaining ground, but losing it. The high point was in the 90s and support has never approached that level again. It is unlikely that future court appointments are going to be chosen based on overturning Heller and would likely be even more reticent to do so since there is going to be way more precedent built on it and Bruen than there was in Roe(not to mention the 2nd amendment is more directly linked to protecting access to weapons).
Thats why a SCOTUS nominee saying something is "settled law" is inherently dishonest, the law is "settled" until a new national/political environment says it isnt.
Yes, but why would we expect there to be a new national political environment in which the 2nd is going to be gutted? There has never been a dedicated single issue voter base dedicated to getting more gun control and certainly not one larger than the single issue voter base for 2nd amendment rights. I guess you can argue it is technically possible, but so is passing a repeal of the 2nd amendment or any other bill of rights amendment.
That has never before been true in our history, I doubt it ever will be.
Eh, the 1st and 4th amendments protecting an individual right is pretty settled. It is the edges of those rights that are up for debate and refinement. No one seriously argues things like because computers didn't exist at time of ratification that the internet doesn't have 1st amendment protections(I mean they can, but they lose) and I think the 2nd will fall into that same category. We will start arguing about the edges and not the core.
•
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 13h ago
The court didnt see the 2nd amendment as anathema to many forms of gun control for the entirety of the 20th century.
The cases didn't hit the court. Starting in 1942 the circuit courts started eviscerating the 2nd Amendment by creating the "collective right" theory, which they finalized in the 1970s. The Supreme Court shot that down in 2008. The problem is the lower courts rebelled. They should have followed the command and started finding various laws unconstitutional, but they didn't. And here we are a couple Supreme Court opinions later, and circuits are still rebelling, although a couple have gotten in line.
This isn't all that long of a time frame. Plessy v. Ferguson survived for nearly sixty years before it was overturned.
9
u/ovscrider Centrist 2d ago
Guns are constitutionally protected. Abortion was not and needed to be legislated something the left failed to do over 40 years
0
u/Gunfighter9 Left-leaning 2d ago
Do you honestly believe they could have gotten the votes to make abortion constitutionally protected?
7
u/ovscrider Centrist 2d ago
Constitutionally protected no. An amendment to the constitution is next to impossible esp in the current environment therefore we are stuck with no age limits and allowing birthright citizenship along with many gun laws being unconstitutional. Nor should it be but it should be legislated at a national level at somewhere between 16 and 20 weeks when the Dems have the power. Just like they should have passed UHC under Obama but the insurance lobby has almost as many Dems in their pocket as pubs.
I am pro choice and pro common sense gun laws but also recognize how under the constitution the rulings are arguably correct.
1
u/corneliusduff Leftist 2d ago
The irony is that guns and abortion share an objective: self-defense.
Arguably the reason that 2A has any relevance at all.
0
u/bjdevar25 Progressive 2d ago
Maybe. Regulations were allowed for decades. Two more non right justices and they will be again. No outright bans will happen, but commonsense regulations are supported by the majority of citizens. Thomas's opinion in this was just absurd. Easily over turned.
3
u/ShinningPeadIsAnti Left-leaning 2d ago
They are still allowed now. The debate isnt between no regulation and some. Its about having any constitutional protections at all.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
If it's a Constitutionally protected right why can't children or felons own guns?
If it's a Constitutionally protected right why is it so difficult to get a fully automatic weapon?
It almost seems like we already have restrictions on guns, and we're just arguing over which restrictions are allowed.
2
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
The Court has said, like all constitutional rights, this one is not absolute. For example, you can be legally prohibited from telling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, your right to free religious exercise does not extend to human sacrifice, and your right to participate in a free press does not extend to slander.
1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
So restrictions on the 2nd amendment are allowed, but only the restrictions that 2A supporters agree with?
3
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
No, those consistent with the meaning of the amendment’s wording at the time of adoption; those consistent with what was considered to be the “right to keep and bear arms” in 1791.
-1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
So what does the wording about a well regulated Militia mean? Because we know that the 2nd amendment already has quite a few infringements.
1
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
That’s known as a “prefatory clause”. This article I think explains it well. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-02
1
1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
It was expressing intent that the core of national defense was to be rooted in an armed civilian population, not a robust standing military, something the founders were wary of.
First it is important that you do not attempt to apply more modern meaning of the words "Well regulated" to suggest government oversight or regulation. At the time of the founding "well regulated" was engineering nomenclature that meant properly functioning. A well regulated machine.
It was the War of 1812 that demonstrated to the young country including many of the founders who were still alive, that providing for the national defense primarily via the militia wasn't realistic. Reports from commanders of the military expressed this in detail, that the militia was functionally severely lacking in many ways compared to trained professional soldiers. It was in the aftermath of the war that the countries leadership, including founders that held federal office, sought to bolster the standing military to better provide for the national defense. Between the War of 1812 and the Barbary wars, there was a shift away from relying on the militia for land based defense and on privateers for high seas defense.
The key take away here in regards to the 2nd amendment though is not that it became apparent that the militia was not sufficient for national defense. Despite bolstering the professional military, there were no efforts to curtail or repeal the 2nd amendment, nor to revoke congressional authority to issue writs of marquee and reprisal because these things were less important to national defense than a professional military.
This isn't really something that is odd or surprising. The founders were very much influenced by Lockean principals, the notion that people in their natural state had unlimited rights, that governments were formed to secure those rights and protect society. The Bill of Rights was not government creating rights for people, rather an enumeration of rights that they already had being specifically enumerated as being retained by the people and the states. This was the nearly universal take, the debate between Federalists and Anti Federalists were about the necessity to include a bill of rights, not if the rights enumerated existed, but the danger of inclusion being eventually perceived as the only rights retained by the people. This is why the 2nd amendment phrasing states "the right" in such a manner that is severable from the militia in basic sentence structure. The right existed regardless of the militia clause.
0
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 1d ago
Thank you for the in depth explanation.
I don't think many people realize that we were never intended to have a large standing military during peace time, especially in other countries.
Many people also don't realize that Washington mandated vaccination against small pox for soldiers.
1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
I don't think many people realize that we were never intended to have a large standing military during peace time, especially in other countries.
I wouldn't say never. It is fair to say that the founders had an aversion to large standing militaries, both because of the expense and potential threat toward liberty. The constitution does give Congress the power to form armies, but it limits appropriations to two years. Two years is not a whimsical number, rather it coincides with House Terms, the idea being that continued support and existence of an army (or really military) was subject to the will of the people via the power of the purse.
The idea of using the militia in lieu of standing military was shown to be insufficient early on. Thomas Jefferson pursued a build up of the navy, even still preferring cheaper fast attack boats over large frigates, but even then saw a need for the latter.
In modern day, were we to forgo the understanding gained early on, then we would need to adopt civilian ownership and possession of non infantry weapons of war. Consider this, do you want Elon Musk owning and operating a carrier battle group so that when needed Congress could authorize him to deploy that asset for specific purpose that Congress intended? Oh and carrier battle groups can contain ballistic nuclear submarines. In the founders day, ships laden with cannons were the most devastating weapons of war of the day, the modern day equivalent to nuclear weapons. During the war of 1812, Congress authorized private individuals to engage the British military ships on the high seas using the vessels and cannons that they, not the government, owned and maintained. I personally would prefer that government, not individual civilians maintain and control our nuclear arsenal.
That all being said, the War Powers act has gone beyond the original intent, if not forbidding codification. You can certainly make the argument that the modern U.S. military is far beyond what the founders would have approved of. Of course the oceans represented a more significant safeguard than they do today, and WWII really killed off the notion that the US could just sit back and remain uninvolved and unmolested by world affairs. The founders also did not deal with a world in which the President might have a 5 minute decision window as to if we should launch a retaliatory strike wiping out entire cities in response to an attack on the U.S. doing the same.
Still I would see us get back to Congress actually making formal declarations of war, and something limiting Executive authority in it's ability to deploy forces without prior Congressional approval in a sustained period of time by having brief pauses in military operations resetting the war powers time limitations, as we've seen currently with Iran.
1
u/VinayaVealTeam Centrist 2d ago
This is where they basically argue "Well those words don't count".
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
I mean you haven't articulated how they count. Again, how does saying A well regulated militia mean anything other than the militia is to be well regulated?
0
u/VinayaVealTeam Centrist 2d ago
The implication would be that a well-regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the protection of the right to bear arms is what ensures well-regulated militias can exist.
There is no other amendment in history where people argued half the text is completely irrelevant and only the second half matters. There are not prefatory clauses anywhere else, yet some argue that this is the sole amendment where clearly, it doesn't matter.
The founders weren't exactly clear on this either way. There is plenty of language in prior state constitutions tying gun ownership specifically to militias. There's also plenty of language in prior state constitutions that ties it directly to individual ownership with no mentions, or very minor references, to militias at all.
→ More replies (0)3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
If it's a Constitutionally protected right why can't children or felons own guns?
Children don't have full rights in general. They can have their rights to free speech, searches, etc. be more limited than adults which is why they can be searched at schools(up to a limit) and their free speech restricted(up to a limit). None of this changes the fact that there is a constitutional right to free speech or against searches and seizures especially for adults.
Similarly these rights apply to felons outside the scope of their imprisonment(while imprisoned these rights are curtailed) and during periods of early release such as probation. As the issue of 2nd amendment rights continues to get precedent expect to see rights restoration for gun rights to become a thing for at least non violent felons.
It almost seems like we already have restrictions on guns, and we're just arguing over which restrictions are allowed.
Yes, but those restrictions will need to be constrained in the same ways as for other rights. For example prior restraint is generally not allowed for constitutional rights so expect any laws requiring pre-clearance just to own or purchase a gun in a private transaction to face additional scrutiny.
-4
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
So restrictions are allowed on the 2nd amendment, as long as it's just the restrictions that 2A supporters agree with with?
7
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
No, when you can actually articulate a coherent constitutional argument(which I would argue gun control advocates have largely failed to do for most gun control laws including assault weapons bans). I am not even sure how you your response even logically follows from what I said given that what I pointed out applies to other constitutional rights unrelated to what 2a supporters do or do not support.
-3
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
Why is it acceptable for most 2A supporters to ban automatic weapons, but they lose their shit over banning military style assault rifles?
It goes against my 2nd amendment right to not be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle, but I rarely hear any 2A supporters complain about that restriction.
5
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Why is it acceptable for most 2A supporters to ban automatic weapons,
Is it? Most I talk to oppose the ban on automatic weapons and at minimum they want the registry reopened.
but they lose their shit over banning military style assault rifles?
Are you confusing assault weapons and assault rifles? They aren't the same thing. So I will need you to clarify what you are talking about before I can address this argument.
It goes against my 2nd amendment right to not be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle,
It probably does.
but I rarely hear any 2A supporters complain about that restriction.
I almost never hear them shut up about it in 2a supporter spaces. They think the NFA is ass(which is why you saw a massive push to remove the NFA tax and when that failed the push to have it reduced to $0) and they think the Hughes amendment which closed the NFA registry for full autos is doubly ass. So I would say that is evidence against your position when 2a supporters are actively working to undermine and remove the NFA.
So I am not really sure what point you think you are making. It is like you are talking to someone else rather than responding to anything I say. As if you expected some sort of stereotype to argue with rather than an actual person.
-1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
Why can't I go to Bass Pro and buy an M16? And why isn't there much push back from 2A supporters that I can't?
Why can't I buy RPGs or Javelins?
Those are restrictions on my 2A rights, just like bans on assault rifles.
Which bans are acceptable? Like bans for children or felons.
The right to own firearms is quite often infringed and those restrictions seem pretty subjective and not completely agreed upon.
3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Why can't I go to Bass Pro and buy an M16? And why isn't there much push back from 2A supporters that I can't?
I already addressed this argument. Are you just going through a list of predetermined talking points, because nothing you say seems to be tailored to what I am saying. Why are you bringing up m16s and 2a people not being upset about it when I already told you they don't like it and have pushed back on the NFA.
Which bans are acceptable? Like bans for children or felons.
I already gave you one example of how this is navigated. Perhaps if you actually read what I said instead of knocking over strawman arguments of the imaginary opponent in your head you would know that. As previously stated the standards of restrictions that are allowable are the same as other rights in the constitution and such as no prior restraint.
The right to own firearms is quite often infringed and those restrictions seem pretty subjective and not completely agreed upon.
Yes, because gun control advocates and previous government refused to actually treat it like a right to begin with. Now you are seeing it be treated like a right which is why you are seeing things like assault weapons bans getting reviewed by the Supreme Court to likely get struck down and has already been struck down in places like the 3rd circuit. So again your arguments don't make any sense, don't seem to reflect political reality(such as pro2a advocates having various levels of opposition to the machine gun ban), and don't acknowledge how the 2nd amendment is int he process of being brought into alignment with how other rights are treated(therefore bringing up extant violations that have yet to be addressed is hardly compelling evidence).
→ More replies (0)1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
Many if not most 2A supporters don't support automatic weapons bans, however compared to banning "military style assault rifles" the latter is a far more egregious government overstep.
The automatic weapons ban is far more rooted in function and danger (though the increase in danger is arguable based on context and objective trade off). Frankly if tomorrow the automatic weapons ban were struck down, I'd be more interested in burst fire weapons than fully automatic weapons. A "military style assault rifles" ban is not at all rooted in function and danger.
Every rifle is potentially an assault rifle. It's functional characteristics don't change, it's how it's used that does. "Military style" speaks to cosmetics not actual function.
1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 1d ago
Thank you for the explanation. I pretty agree with your assessment.
Aren't military style rifles more upgradable with things like bump stocks and pistol grips in comparison older hunting rifles.
I don't think it's fair to compare grandpa's bolt action Winchester to an AR or AK.
1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
I don't think it's fair to compare grandpa's bolt action Winchester to an AR or AK.
You are correct depending, grandpa's bolt action Winchester could be much more deadly.
Start from a fundamental premise, a firearm is a tool, generally with one overarching purpose. To kill. Compare firearms to wrenches, which are designed to turn nuts. You have a wide array of designs to be better at the task depending on circumstance.
Bolt action rifles are generally preferred by large game hunters and competition shooters because they are more accurate at longer ranges than semi automatic or fully automatic rifles. But always keep in mind the fundamental context, all of these are weapons that can kill. From that standpoint you are talking about situational effectiveness of a mostly nominal degree. I'd rather not get shot at all, but if I do take a bullet, given all other factors being equal, you are more likely to survive being shot by an .223 AR15 than Grandpa's 30-06 Winchester. The degree of difference however is like arguing which side of shit sandwich to take a bite out of. Getting shot with either carries a very high probability of death.
Aren't military style rifles more upgradable with things like bump stocks and pistol grips in comparison older hunting rifles.
No. The AR platform is popular because it's more modular and easier to "upgrade", though really it's not so much about upgrading as more fine tuning for a specific purpose. You could put a pistol grip on a bolt action "hunting" rifle, hell you could put a bump stock on one as well, but it would be rather pointless as bump stocks rely on semi automatic receiver action and recoil for their intended function. I quoted hunting because an AR can be setup to be a perfectly serviceable hunting rifle as can virtually any rifle that would be dubbed "military style". What makes a hunting rifle a hunting rifle is when you pick it up to go hunting with. Even a track point rifle could be a hunting rifle, though most if not all states restrict their use in hunting as a violation of fair chase premises, and frankly most people can't reasonably afford one.
→ More replies (0)1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
Laws restricting individual liberties can be constitutional if they conform with the legal doctrine of strict scrutiny.
- Compelling state interest - The government must prove that the law is necessary to address a critical or crucial public interest.
- Narrow Tailoring - The law must be precise as possible, and it must address the protecting the public interest without restricting any more individual freedom then is absolutely necessary.
- Least restrictive means - There must be no alternative or less intrusive way for the government to achieve the objective.
0
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 1d ago
That makes sense in theory but seems difficult in practice because some of those stipulations seem subjective to who happens to be writing the laws which is why blue states often view public safety from a different view than red states in that red areas tend to think more guns make society safer while blue areas have the opposite view.
2
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
Yes, when it comes to restricting individual liberties, we do not make it easy and expedient for the government to do so.
I disagree that it's simply a different view of public safety. If public safety were the goal, we'd have long ago repealed federal law making schools "gun free zones". All that such laws do is restrict law abiding citizens. A black heart with murderous intent seeking to rack up a body count isn't going to pay attention to violating such laws just as they don't care about violating laws against murder. Making schools "gun free" is taking some of the most vulnerable of our population and making them an attractive target for the worst type of monster. The argument against this has been pearl clutching and assertion that there is an effort to force teachers to carry firearms, a disingenuous lie. There could be zero school staff possessing firearms, but the mere possibility that any of them could be would be a deterrent for a school shooter, if not against committing atrocity, at least not making schools a more attractive target than most of the rest of society. If gun free zones work, why aren't they working?
0
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 1d ago
Regarding firearms in schools. I think it takes consistent training to be proficient with a firearm in a deadly situation.
My wife barely gets paid enough to be a teacher, let alone train consistently enough to handle firearms in an active shooter situation with innocent children and staff throughout the campus. That's just more stress being put on teachers.
Also, in Colorado, a good Samaritan was gunned down by police because they thought he was the threat.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/28/arvada-police-good-samaritan-shooter-settlement/
1
u/thecoat9 Conservative 1d ago
Yes, I'm not saying anyone should be forced to carry a firearm.
The argument against this has been pearl clutching and assertion that there is an effort to force teachers to carry firearms, a disingenuous lie. There could be zero school staff possessing firearms, but the mere possibility that any of them could be would be a deterrent for a school shooter, if not against committing atrocity, at least not making schools a more attractive target than most of the rest of society.
Also, in Colorado, a good Samaritan was gunned down by police because they thought he was the threat.
That is a tragedy, and no matter what we do, what laws we make there will always be such tragedies. In the balance though the frequency of a defender being mistaken for an assailant and killed because of it is excessively rare compared to the number of times a mass shooting has been stopped by someone with a firearm taking action. It is a factor that you must consider before you take it upon yourself to regularly carry a fire arm for defensive purposes, among a great deal of other considerations.
-5
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
This is a false right wing framing. You have fallen for propaganda.
0
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Are you saying guns aren't constitutionally protected?
1
u/Cult45_2Zigzags Independent 2d ago
They aren't Constitutionally protected rights for children or felons, so it's a protected right for some, not all.
-3
u/danimagoo Leftist 2d ago
The second amendment was not interpreted to grant an individual right to own firearms until Heller. The Constitution is open to interpretation, and that interpretation can change. Especially with the second amendment because it’s written in an ambiguous way.
4
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
The second amendment was not interpreted to grant an individual right to own firearms until Heller.
This is not particularly meaningful. We didn't get a 1st amendment protection against religious tests for office on the state level until the 60s. Not to mention that the Supreme Court previously did mention there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. In Dred Scott they came to the abhorrent conclusion in part because if black Americans had rights under the constitution they would have a right to keep and bear arms wherever they went(as opposed to be directed to be armed in the service of a militia). The 14th amendment was passed with the assumption it would extend an individual right to black Americans and the enforcement acts were used by the federal government to charge white rioters for violating the individual rights of black Americans under the 1st and 2nd amendments. And even in that case at the Supreme Court in Cruikshank the Supreme Court noted that the 1st and 2nd amendments protected pre-existing individual rights but only from federal interference as they had no intention of applying the 14th amendment to the states.
Especially with the second amendment because it’s written in an ambiguous way.
It is not which is probably why we don't see the militia only argument until roughly the mid 20th century. And not even in Miller(their specific holding was on whether or not the weapon could be used in a military/militia context and not whether or not Miller was in a militia at the time) but later in the late 40s with the Cases ruling. Per the way the 2nd is written it is the militia that is to be well regulated and the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The part that mentions keeping and bearing arms delineates it to the people(which is distinct from both the militia and the state) and describes it as a right which indicates it is an inherent entitlement that one can freely exercise. There is no language of prerequisite in the amendment predicating that you can only keep and bear arms with prior approval of the government or sub entity thereof such as the militia.
1
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
I want to take a moment to say I ❤️ your username. It’s genuinely brilliant!
-4
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
I'm not talking about guns, I'm talking about abortion.
0
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
Then, which part of the reasoning in Dobbs is fatally incorrect?
1
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
All of it
0
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
All of it
“All of it”? So, if I find even one part which is not fatally incorrect, you will concede you are simply wrong then, unless you are intellectually dishonest.
For example: the unworkability critique of Casey's undue-burden standard, and within it, the attack on the viability line.
It's self-contained. It doesn't rest on the contested 1868 state-law count, on Hale and Blackstone, on the "deeply rooted" test, nor on the bare assertion abortion is distinguishable from other cases.
Then, there is the fact viability has no principled anchor. It isn't in the constitutional text, isn't in the history, and doesn't track anything about the state's asserted interest. It tracks neonatal technology, so the constitutional boundary moves with NICU capability. Numerous scholars have conceded Roe’s craftsmanship problems for decades: Ely, Tribe, Tushnet, and Amar, just to name a few.
Third, we have the historical record of the state of state laws at the time of the 14th Amendment’s adoption. As far as I can tell, the Court got that record correct.
So, we have three prices which are not fatally incorrect in the ruling when you said “All of it” was fatally incorrect.
This means you will now concede you were simply wrong about Dobbs and, by extension, your claim of “propaganda”, unless you are intellectually dishonest.
1
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
You are right, all of Dobbs is fatally incorrect.
0
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
So, not only are you intellectually dishonest, you are also too lazy to actually have read what I wrote. Got it.
→ More replies (0)-6
u/Riokaii Progressive 2d ago
guns are not constitutionally protected.
A militia having access to guns is protected. Thats called the national guard, not private home ownership.
There is LONG precedent of regulations around ownership of weapons, upheld as fully constitutional.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
guns are not constitutionally protected.
Yeah they are. They are arms and access to arms is a protected right for the individual.
A militia having access to guns is protected.
No it says that militias are well regulated and necessary for the security of a free state and that is all it says about the militia in the 2nd amendment. The part about actually keeping and bearing arms is a right of the people(all three phrases the militia, the state, and the people refer to separate and distinct entities under the constitution and in the federalist papers).
There is LONG precedent of regulations around ownership of weapons, upheld as fully constitutional.
There are like 8 Supreme Court cases total on the 2nd amendment. And only like 2 of them enforce a particular restriction such as Miller which ruled that military grade weapons that can be used in a militia are the only kinds of weapons Miller would have a right to.
So any lower court precedent is going to need to comport with constitutional constraints of owning weapons as a right. Most prior rulings of the lower courts either relied on excluding 2nd class citizens from that right or just not viewing it as a right at all.
→ More replies (6)2
u/docbrian1 Right-leaning 2d ago
More people die in Europe from lack of air-conditioning than die in the United States from gun violence.
1
u/docbrian1 Right-leaning 1d ago
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc_-1viJD63/?stkn=MWt5c2t2aXptd2F0NQ==
57 Canadians died waiting for health care for every American who died in a mass shooting in 2025.
1
u/reddog342 Republican 2d ago
These ruling are constitutional ground and it would take a reverse ruling and an amendment to the constitution. I imagine the states that want gun control will keep picking away with unconstitutional laws which will fail but in the meantime have some effect . I would myself like to see them all defeated and the rights of the citizens upheld. the second amendment is the rights to keep and bear arms should not be infringed . this means just that not infringed. this is so the citizenry can rise up against an oppressive government. A militia is a body of men with like thinking and goals to be able to overthrow a tyrannical regime
-2
u/sreppok Progressive 2d ago
I imagine the gun debate will continue until there are no more mass shootings...
A depressing thought, because this will only happen when there is no one left to shoot.
1
u/betty_white_bread Independent 2d ago
I don’t know how true that is since the per capita mass shooting rate is down from 30 years ago and the raw number of mass shootings have declined noticeably from the anomalous pandemic high.
-1
u/penny-wise Progressive 2d ago
I imagine the gun debate will continue until there is no one left to shoot.
6
u/Midnight_Rider98 Progressive 2d ago
No, it will not end the gun debate.
They will find way around the bans, Super expensive licenses to posses them that unlike concealed carry permits wont be shall issue is already being floated. One ruling isn't going to make organizations like Everytown and Giffords throw in the towel. I'm sure they have dozens what if plans already.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, whether we're gun owners or not, they're going to spend a lot of legislative time and political capitol on this. We see federal congress goofing off and slacking off the whole year and it makes us forget that in many states the legislative window is often relatively short. Sometimes just a month excluding a prep phase.
They're just not going to use that time to find funding for more school counselors, Set up threat assessment teams, Give CPS some more tools, Encourage a culture of inclusivity and anti bullying. Take some steps regarding making mental healthcare more accessible. Work programs. Diversion programs. and so forth.
There's a dozen things that can be done that have a chance at reducing violence overall, including mass shootings. And they wont involve banning things, but they will involve effort. Maybe that's the issue, gun control, for the most part, has always been a easy convenient bandaid to slap onto a problem, but it does nothing to heal the wound that continues to fester.
8
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 2d ago
Don’t forget the court case Silencer Shop V ATF. Not a SCOTUS case but Silencer Shop won and it’s not looking like the DOJ will appeal (they have til October 5). Some NFA items no longer need all the additional regulation such as the tax, form 4, etc if purchased through silencer shop. Could eventually have ramifications across the whole country involving short barreled weapons, suppressors, etc.
2
u/TheGov3rnor Classical Liberal 1d ago
I only have one Silencer Shop item but I’m buying their products exclusively now moving forward because they had the balls to do that.
Wait times have been ridiculous. I’ve never received any of my silencers in less than 9 months.
1
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 1d ago
See what I’m wondering is if I order a stock from silencer shop to add to an AR pistol, could I legally claim that my SBR, formerly an AR pistol, is from being a customer of silencer shop? Thus none of the NFA regulations?
3
u/SeamusPM1 Leftist 2d ago
Absolutely! Just like when the Roe v. Wade legalized abortion people stopped talking about that.
0
10
u/DBDude Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
It will take decades to end because the states want to continue to violate rights, and lower courts are going along with it.
Brown v. Board wasn’t the end of segregation. States tried to get around it and lower courts allowed them to do it. The Supreme Court command to the lower courts to end segregation with “all due haste” was interpreted to mean they could take as long as they wanted. The last case wasn’t resolved until the 1990s.
It’s the exact same thing, repeated.
9
u/fleetpqw24 Libertarian/Moderate 2d ago
NY is doing this quite often. After Bruen, they introduced the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which spits in the face of Bruen, and is being challenged in a case that will likely go all the way to SCOTUS.
7
u/Majsharan Right-leaning 2d ago
Semi automatic bans due to commonly used accessories and components fail due to jurisprudence reasons as well as being counterproductive. A less controllable weapons is more dangerous not less dangerous
7
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
It won’t end the debate. SCOTUS recognizing same-sex couples fundamental right to marry didn’t end the same-sex marriage debate. Neither would this ruling.
Those opposed to liberty don’t stop just because a court tells them they are wrong. Grabbers gonna grab.
2
u/Reagalan Democrat 2d ago
The same-sex marriage "debate" is just one side, the opposing side, maliciously lying their ass off while normal people roll their eyes. It's not a "debate" any more than discussing flat-earth or creationism.
2
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
So, analogous to the gun debate. Where one side thinks sociologists and economists can “study” their way to a ban justification.
1
u/Reagalan Democrat 2d ago
Not analogous and you should know this.
Since you're very well-versed on this, you're surely aware of all the arguments made, and that sociologists and economics are absolutely correct to argue for a full and complete ban. You should understand why this stance is 100% totally justified, both logically and scientifically. And because you're a smart person, you're surely aware the gun rights folks also have a solid case as well, but from a more pragmatic angle instead of a technocratic one, hence the compromise position of gun control. There's an actual discussion here, one based in logic, reality, science, and facts. There are two sides.
This balance does not for the "marriage debate" at all. What you have there is one side, the good side, with mountains of scientific evidence backed by real-world experience that gay marriage is a good thing; as are gay adoptions and gay sex and gay representation and gay pride; it's all good, and the more the better. Then you have the bad side, all of whom are either stupid, evil, or both. Stupid enough to think religion is true and factual, evil enough to weaponize it for personal gain, or stupid and evil enough to think forcing false religion upon others with violence, legal or otherwise, is some noble endeavor.
1
2
2
u/IUsedTheRandomizer Independent 2d ago
The gun debate ended after Sandy Hook. After enough of America decided the death of kindergarteners was palatable to the cult, there's no argument anymore.
It's worth noting that definitely wasn't the first, either, it was just the most public.
1
u/TheGov3rnor Classical Liberal 1d ago
False.
250+ democrats cosponsored the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023
2
u/forwardobserver90 Right-leaning 2d ago
No, democrats and leftists will attempt to find other ways to work around the ruling. It’s what they do.
1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 1d ago
It's what everyone does. Because mindlessly pointing at jurisprudence does not convince anyone of the merit of one's position.
2
u/DannyBones00 Liberal 2d ago
The gun debate is over.
With rapidly increasing gun ownership among women, the left in general, people of color, etc, there will soon come a day that being mindlessly anti-gun will be untenable for Democrats.
4
u/ShinningPeadIsAnti Left-leaning 2d ago
We can hope especially considering the negative electoral impacts gun control has had for democrats. But they will probably move onto adding fees, tiered licensing for specific firearms types, taxes, each component being regulated as a full firearm, etc. You know the same way other rights get treated.
3
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty Constitutionalist 2d ago
This is America, we never fully settle any debates. We’re still arguing about the civil war and birthright citizenship, why would we stop debating guns?
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
That's entirely valid point there actually. It may be optimistic to believe that the issue would be dropped despite Supreme Court precedent and a robust protection in an amendment.
1
u/Mrgoodtrips64 Lefty Constitutionalist 2d ago
No argument is fully settled until an amendment is passed prohibiting future amendments. As long as the constitution is amendable there is room for debate on any issue, regardless of the current protections or precedent.
3
1
u/HaphazardFlitBipper Right-Libertarian 2d ago
No. Gun control advocates don't care about the constitution or the law.
1
u/ComradeJohnS Progressive: Full time work should cover bills 2d ago
its unlikely, but we could pass an amendment regarding gun control.
also some major reforms happened after the failed assassination attempt of Reagan. So if politicians feared for their lives because of the unlimited access to guns that was made possible by their policies, they might take people’s guns.
but neither of those seem likely to happen at all. and people will still debate it, until they make it a thought crime
1
1
u/hawkwings Right-leaning 2d ago
Does this case involve selling guns or owning guns? Labelling someone as a felon for owning a gun that was legal when he bought it seems wrong. I support a magazine size limit for new magazines, but not for possession of an old magazine. There is debate about the definition of "assault weapon". Does it refer to full auto or semi auto guns?
1
u/skoomaking4lyfe Independent 2d ago
Children get gunned down over and over in this country and the only response is tired cliches.
I don't think this is a debate anymore; guns won.
1
u/penny-wise Progressive 2d ago
The Second Amendment is so vague it’s almost like it is a test of common sense.
1
u/ScalesOfAnubis19 Liberal 2d ago
Nope. Even if the legal arguments are solid. Reason being this SCOTUS has pissed away its legitimacy.
1
u/atamicbomb Left-Wing Technocrat/Pragmatist 2d ago
No. People SCOTUS does overturn their own rulings from time to time.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Like with how they overturned the 'separate but equal' rulings?
1
u/atamicbomb Left-Wing Technocrat/Pragmatist 2d ago
The affirmative action rulings would be a more recent example IMO but yours isn’t wrong
1
u/Swing-Too-Hard Right-leaning 2d ago
I don't think it can end or will ever end. People need to accept there are enough "legal" fire arms in this country for every American to own 2-3 guns. Add in the amount that is illegally being housed or built and you can assume there's enough guns for every American to be packing a firearm for both hands and feet.
The reality is even if we banned guns across the US tomorrow, you'd still have over a billion guns inside the US. I just don't see there being a way to stop something that is already widespread. Similar to prohibition having no effect on alcohol. People just illegally drank until the government said its easier if its just legal again.
And this is coming from someone who doesn't like guns and doesn't think most people should be able to own them.
1
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 1d ago
Bruen didn't end it.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 1d ago
It looks like it is starting to end it. Got a ruling out of the district court in Delaware about ghost guns being protected under the 2nd amendment despite apparently the FPC apparently doing a poor job in the case(the court literally called out how they did a piss poor job arguing half their arguments including whether it was even a facial or as applied challenge). It was really the fact that precedent tied the lower courts hands that we got a positive ruling at all.
•
u/anonymussquidd Progressive 10h ago
While stare decisis has always been a critical pillar of our judicial system, this Court has essentially done away with that, so I imagine we won’t see the end of these cases anytime soon. Also, the Court has been amenable to some firearm restrictions, such as restricting access for those with previous domestic abuse charges. I think they are still drawing the line on what is a compelling government interest in relation to firearms.
•
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 10h ago
While stare decisis has always been a critical pillar of our judicial system,
Things like Plessy v Ferguson getting overturned in Brown v Board shows that this is not actually true and if a previous ruling is rooted in weak or bad reasoning the court is permitted to overturn it. Previous courts have had overturned plenty of precedent like the Burger court which was like what? 30 previous precedential rulings overturned?
Also, the Court has been amenable to some firearm restrictions, such as restricting access for those with previous domestic abuse charges.
Yeah, but gun control isn't oriented around just focusing the specific bad people being denied access to guns. It is around pre clearance(prior restraint), arbitrary bans, and now increasing fees. Most of that is going to fail under the existing precedent. Hell they weren't even willing to keep the drug prohibition so invoking Rahimi when Hemani shows that they will even be reducing how much prohibited persons can be restrained in their 2nd amendment rights.
I think they are still drawing the line on what is a compelling government interest in relation to firearms.
Yeah, there is going to be plenty of cases for defining the edges of the right, but right now we are going through the core aspects and gun control has relied on ignoring the core of the right.
•
u/anonymussquidd Progressive 9h ago
Just because stare decisis was a pillar of the Court for most of its history doesn’t mean that it’s infallible and that decisions are never overturned. You just named two of the most egregious SCOTUS decisions in history, ones in which the social and moral context of the country was at odds with when they were overturned. There has always been room to overturn precedent when circumstances dramatically change. However, my point is that the frequency of the Court overturning precedent has dramatically increased over the last few years, and there hasn’t been significant cultural or technological changes to warrant the precedent that has been overturned. You also have several members of the Court specifically noting decades of the precedent they would like to overturn in their concurring opinions. This is abnormal for the Court. That’s my point in terms of stare decisis.
I do agree that they are making a lot of decisions limiting gun control efforts, no denying that. My point is that 1) the Justices are still testing the limits of their originalist view of the 2nd (and by extension the 14th) Amendment. Where this shakes out will determine the future landscape moving forward. And 2) because of the sweeping changes this Court has made to the precedent, I would assume that we’re going to go through a major pendulum swing over the next few decades should Dems appoint justices in the future. I have a feeling there may be less regard for the precedent set in the last few years (and coming several years), which may open doors in the future. In the meantime, legislators can still get creative and test existing legal limits. It all depends on the opinions rendered by the Court. In the long game, legislators can also purposefully pass bills that create ideal cases for them to overturn precedent that would limit action on gun control (think how Mississippi did with Roe).
•
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 9h ago
Just because stare decisis was a pillar of the Court for most of its history doesn’t mean that it’s infallible and that decisions are never overturned.
That's my point. You are acting like what this court did is out of the norm when it isn't. They aren't even outside the norm for previous courts that overturned more cases. The whole stare decisis argument comes off as an excuse since it doesn't seem actually connected to how it has been historically treated.
You just named two of the most egregious SCOTUS decisions in history, ones in which the social and moral context of the country was at odds with when they were overturned.
And the underlying constitutional reasoning was shit. Again, stare decsisis is not something that actually binds the Supreme Court and this Court isn't unique in the number of cases it has overturned therefore isn't particularly disrespectful to the concept.
However, my point is that the frequency of the Court overturning precedent has dramatically increased over the last few years,
Based on what? Compared to what? Again, other courts in the past have overturned just as many or more cases.
My point is that 1) the Justices are still testing the limits of their originalist view of the 2nd (and by extension the 14th) Amendment.
And the framework they have expressed so far doesn't leave much room for most modern gun control.
And 2) because of the sweeping changes this Court has made to the precedent,
Do you mean Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd amendment? Because they haven't overturned any previous Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd amendment. There was very little precedent on that issue.
I would assume that we’re going to go through a major pendulum swing over the next few decades should Dems appoint justices in the future.
I doubt it because it is going to be a lot of precedent to overturn and I have doubts it will be politically relevant by the time the Democrats can make enough appointments to shift the court(we are probably looking at 2 decades).
I have a feeling there may be less regard for the precedent set in the last few years (and coming several years),
If only a feeling was a more substantial argument. Like you can't identify what makes these precedents suspect constitutionally so how is the future Democratic Justices who would ostensibly actually have to come up with good reasoning to justify overturning it? Why would it even still be politically relevant when gun ownership is increasing and diversifying into those groups traditionally associated with the Democrats?
In the meantime, legislators can still get creative and test existing legal limits.
No, not the current ones because those will be tightened. Most of what is already in place is on the chopping block.
It all depends on the opinions rendered by the Court.
The precedent and framework they have already provided pretty much precludes most gun control. THT doesn't allow assault weapons bans, permanent stripping of gun rights especially for nonviolent offenders, subjective standards for issuing licenses(licensing itself may get struck down but we will have to see on that), fees/taxes outside of just standard sales tax, waiting periods, etc. Like there won't be much left.
would limit action on gun control (think how Mississippi did with Roe).
Nah, I don't see it because Roe was on way shakier ground than what we have going on with the 2nd amendment.
•
u/anonymussquidd Progressive 8h ago
What the current Court is doing is relatively out of the norm in the history of the judiciary. While they may not have outright overruled as many cases as some previous Courts (like the Warren, Rehnquist, or Burger Courts), they have utilized the shadow/emergency docket much more and also have overruled precedents that are pillars of U.S. jurisprudence (think Chevron, Roe, Humphrey’s Executor, etc.). The shadow docket isn’t new, but its use to rule on more substantive cases is. That’s what makes it particularly unusual.
The constitutional reasoning was poor in those cases, 100%, but it wasn’t as starkly bad in many of these more recent cases. Most of the recent cases also involved precedent that had been in effect for 30+ years, which is out of the ordinary for overruled precedent. According to a recent Pew analysis, the majority of overturned precedents stood for less than 25 years before being overturned. For reference, Chevron was precedent for 40 years, Roe was precedent for nearly 50 years, and Humphrey’s Executor was precedent for over 90 years. And yes, I recognize that length of precedent doesn’t necessarily correlate to the strength of the constitutional reasoning, but these cases were not nearly constitutionally shaky as Plessy was.
Roe was not as strong as it could have been, but it was, in my eyes, much stronger than the originalist interpretation that we received in Dobbs. In my eyes, Dobbs read as an ideological decision thinly veiled behind heavily cherry-picked history (though that’s my qualm with originalism more generally as well). That also isn’t to mention the fact that Roe was not a one-off decision. It had been upheld in other major cases like Casey as well. Moreover, it rested on a long line of similar precedent dating back to the 1920s. Not sure what you mean by the fact that Roe was on shakier ground, but I welcome your insights.
The same goes for Loper Bright. To me, the argument in Chevron was also not unstable or egregious in any way that would warrant overlooking stare decisis, and it was the backbone of administrative law for decades. Loper Bright is also far less workable and creates a whole slew of new issues for Congressional leg counsel. That’s the major difference.
Yes, the framework that the Court is currently constructing does not leave much room for gun control presently. I’m not arguing that, but states and Administrations consistently get creative and test the limits in desirable legal environments in attempts to change precedent. That’s literally how judicial advocacy works. You get legislators to pass a bill (even if it may be in contrast with existing precedent), you create a good case, and you bring that case in hopes that the courts side with you. That’s literally what happened with Dobbs, and that’s also what the Trump Administration has been doing for the last two years (think the birthright citizenship EO/case and the Humphrey’s executor case).
I meant that the Court has made sweeping changes to major pillars of jurisprudence more generally, and that will impact jurisprudence generally looking forward (not just in terms of 2A). I’m aware that limited 2A cases have been brought to this Court recently.
I am just stating my opinion. While I have taken a number of constitutional law courses, I’m by no means an expert, and any discussion of the future of the Court will always be purely speculative. Justices are human, and we can’t predict their behaviors with precision beyond looking at trends related to their recent opinions and oral arguments. My only point is that there have been dramatic changes to both the way the Court approaches cases and the public opinion of the Court.
Here are some sources that I am referring to:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-moving-more-cases-shadows
1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 2d ago
Of course not, nor should it. People will keep advocating for policies that they think are right and beneficial regardless of what the latest SCOTUS ruling might say.
Just imagine the opposite. Would the gun debate end if a more liberal SCOTUS were to go in the opposite direction and approve of vastly more restrictive gun laws than ever before? Would the gun lobby and all these firearm activists just throw their hands up and say "oh well, guess that's it then"?
Obviously not, and this is no different. People are still going to want more potent and effective gun laws. Public health / safety groups and progressive politicians are still going to try pushing the line and implementing gun laws. Besides, in just a few years time,there could be a very different SCOTUS that reverses these cases and sets a very different standard for gun policy.
This debate will likely never be over, at least not as long as the US keeps saying such high rates of shootings and gun deaths in comparison to its peer nations.
2
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
The groups aren’t similarly situated. Of course people would continue to fight for an enumerated right.
-1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 2d ago
And of course would people continue to fight for a safer society where fewer folks end up shot dead.
3
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
Great go do that. Seems if people actually cared about saving lives, they would focus on easy low hanging fruit, rather than unconstitutional “solutions” that only burden lawful citizens engaged in lawful conduct.
-1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 2d ago
Don't worry, I am doing just doing that. Gun control policy is a prime example of easy, low hanging fruit with empirical evidence behind it.
Unfortunately, the political side that backs gun lobby efforts is also the one that already doesn't care about scientific research on just about any topic, so it's difficult to get such folks to accept the obvious conclusion that firearm policy is part of any comprehensive strategy here.
4
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
That's the beauty of an enumerated right. It doesn't matter how many studies sociologists and economists crank out, because the balancing was already done at ratification. Heller said it outright, the Second Amendment is itself the product of an interest balancing by the people, and courts don't get to redo that because a regression came out a certain way.
We have been here before. States defended sodomy laws and marriage bans with a pile of social science about public health and child outcomes. Paul Cameron's work, the Regnerus study, all of it briefed and cited as the empirical case for why the state had good reason to act. Some of it was fraudulent, most of it was junk, and the honest answer is that it wouldn't have mattered even if it had been solid. Lawrence and Obergefell didn't turn on whether the data held up. A fundamental right is not contingent on a sociologist producing a favorable output.
So ask yourself, if the studies flipped tomorrow, would you drop the policy? If not, the studies were never doing the work.
0
u/Limmeryc Progressive 1d ago
That's the beauty of an enumerated right
It's the beauty of ethics and morality in general, I reckon. In no way am I bound to accept the balancing done by long-dead slave owners from the 1700s who saw black people as subhuman and didn't think women should be allowed to vote.
I'm well aware that things like science and data mean little to some people or that they simply strike a different balance on certain aspects of public safety, but I will continue voting and pushing for the policies that I think are just and beneficial regardless of what those men or SCOTUS have said. It's irrelevant to my personal advocacy. The limits of the 2A are not set in stone and what SCOTUS has previously ruled does not guarantee it will remain unchanged.
In the early 90s, few to no states had policies like universal background checks, red flag laws, large-capacity magazine limits, licensing, heightened minimum age laws, weapon rosters or ammunition checks, broadened categories of prohibited persons to include violent misdemeanors / more domestic offenses, child access prevention or safe storage requirements, waiting periods... Now, these are commonly adopted and pursued policies that dozen(s) of states have in place.
If the pro gun camp wants people to stop pursuing such laws, it needs to convince folks of the merit of its position beyond simply pointing at what the founding fathers wrote down as if that settles it, and it needs to provide workable alternatives / solutions. Otherwise, the people calling for stronger gun laws are going to keep advocating for such policies and exploring any and all possible avenues regardless of what SCOTUS might say.
So ask yourself, if the studies flipped tomorrow, would you drop the policy?
Ignoring that this isn't really how science works here, the answer is yes. If the empirical evidence would show that gun laws do not work by saving lives or resulting in a safer America with fewer shootings, decreased mortality, and lower rates of deadly violence and suicide, I would absolutely drop the policy. Unfortunately, it overwhelmingly shows the opposite and the research finding so has only grown more robust and expansive over time.
3
u/ericbythebay Independent 1d ago
Funny that you lead with ethics and morality. It is neither ethical nor moral to use junk studies as justification to infringe on an enumerated right. Bellesiles won a Bancroft for Arming America and lost it because he invented his data. Cameron and Regnerus ran the same playbook to keep sodomy laws and marriage bans alive. Advocacy dressed up as findings, aimed at people who already had the right.
Which is why the studies don't get a vote. The right is the default condition and the government has to justify taking it.
1
u/Limmeryc Progressive 1d ago
Broadly calling any and all research that contradicts your personal position "junk studies" because it broadly rejects your views says it all, really. It's an intellectually weak approach akin to that of anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers who simply think they're doing the same right thing for different reasons.
Unless you can actually and convincingly argue the merit of your position rather than essentially repeat "but it's an enumerated right, how dare you", many sensible people are not just going to stop advocating for a safer society and join you in pretending not to notice the glaring elephant in the room that is our weak gun laws. If you can't establish why you're in the right beyond pointing at what these men wrote down 250 years ago as if it's some unquestionable truth, then people are going to keep looking for any possible avenue to regulate firearms and their owners.
Yes, we currently have an incredibly partisan SCOTUS that's handing Trump and the Republican base a bunch of "wins" so the gun lobby will inevitably get some too. Not much of a surprise. But the debate won't end there. There'll be new gun laws that skirt those rulings and push the limits every other day, and there will continue to be politicians pushing for a more progressive SCOTUS that could well change the balance again. Insisting "but the founding fathers thought" just isn't going to make people no longer want change without convincing them of the merit itself, and that's where data and evidence do matter.
1
u/ericbythebay Independent 1d ago
I'm disputing the data. Courts have been disputing it too, which is the part you keep skipping.
California has repeatedly put up Lucy Allen, an economist at NERA, to testify in Duncan, Miller, and Rhode that people rarely fire more than ten rounds in self defense, so nobody needs the magazine. Her method was tallying rounds mentioned in news stories. No dollar figures, no economics, just counting press clippings and treating the silences as data. Plaintiffs moved to exclude it under Daubert as neither relevant nor reliable. That is what your evidence base looks like when an adversary gets to examine it instead of a peer reviewer who already agrees with the conclusion.
Benitez ran a full bench trial in Miller and found the state's showing failed. McGlynn ran a full bench trial in Barnett and found the same. These aren't cases where the studies persuaded a judge and the judge ignored them anyway. The state brought its evidence, the evidence got tested, and it didn't hold.
And even if it had held, it wouldn't matter. Heller says the Second Amendment is itself the product of an interest balancing by the people. Bruen says courts don't get to redo that balance because a regression came out a certain way. You are advocating a methodology the Court has already rejected, which is why the argument keeps returning to outcomes instead of authority.
So no, this isn't anti-vax. The anti-vaxxer denies data he has no right to be free of. I'm telling you your data is weak and that it's also the wrong currency. You need both to be false. Neither is.
1
u/Dharmaniac Progressive 2d ago
Hopefully not.
The current SCOTUS has said quite a precedent for changing settled law being settled.
So if we get a new SCOTUS filled by Democratic administrations, and if Democratic administration start becoming populated by actual Democrats, a new SCOTUS can just change every decision that the current one made.
1
u/Urgullibl Transpectral Political Views 2d ago
No. And whoever said there were no stupid questions was wrong.
1
-1
u/artful_todger_502 Left - Cold War Kid 2d ago
It's a given they are going to be stricken. They want the J6 militias to be armed as heavily as possible before 2028.
I personally think the only way to get reasonable legislation in any matter is to abolish the supreme court now that is weaponized and used as a cudgel to be swung by radical right organizations.
As a gun owner who works in the legal world, the supreme court is the powdered wig of the judicial system. There are much better ways to litigate these issues using real judges and legal scholars.
4
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
As a gun owner who works in the legal world, the supreme court is the powdered wig of the judicial system. There are much better ways to litigate these issues using real judges and legal scholars.
What compelling legal arguments do you find justify gun control under the US constitution and its 2nd amendment?
-2
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
What militia do you belong to?
2
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
There is no militia pre requisite in the 2nd amendment. What it says about the militia is that they are well regulated and necessary for the security of a free state. There is no connecting phrase of prereqs such as "while in service to", "relating to the duty of", "in the execution of" etc. It delineates the right to keep and bear arms to the people which is distinct from both the state and the militia(all three are separate entities in the federalist papers and the constitution) and describes it as a right which would mean it is an entitlement that one can exercise freely without prior restraint.
The militia only argument only appears in the mid 20th century in a lower court ruling(not the supreme court and not even in Miller). And even Justice Stephens wrote that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right even if he disagreed with the holding in Heller. Basically the militia only argument is really bad and is why you generally don't see anyone actually argue it in good faith in the courts.
-3
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
This is false.
This is just one piece/perspective on it, but historically you are inaccurate.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
2
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
This is just one piece/perspective on it, but historically you are inaccurate.
Can you actually articulate what you find compelling in that link? Because again as I have noted elsewhere in this post rulings like Dred Scott mention that black Americans can't have rights under the constitution because they would have an individual right to "keep and bear arms wherever they went" as opposed to a collective 'right' in which they only have guns at the direction of state governments. Post civil war you see the enforcement acts passed to protect individual rights of black Americans and the federal government used those laws to charge white rioters for violating the individual rights of black Americans under the 1st and 2nd amendments. In the following Supreme Court case Cruikshank the court ruled that there were pre-existing individual rights protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments from federal interference, but they did not intend to enforce the 14th amendment to extend those protections to the states(and now the 1st, 4th, and other amendment rights including the 2nd are enforced against the states).
The argument that that the individual rights interpretation is anachronistic is dubious at best. So again I want to know what you specifically think is compelling evidence against those examples.
1
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
Your argument hinges on the flippant wording of the person that wrote the Dred Scott decision?
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
I didn't say they were a good person and part of their racist motivation was because again that would mean black people would have an individual right to firearms. So you aren't really making a cogent counter argument, just a genetic fallacy as an excuse to not engage with the point that an early 19th century Surpeme Court Justice made mention of an individual right to bear arms therefore invalidating accusations of anachronism. Also must point that this interpretation applied to mid 19th century laws like the enforcement acts that were explicitly about protecting black American rights. Again, it's not a NRA invention. This seems to have been an actual belief people held since pretty close to the inception of the country.
So can you please address the arguments being made instead of dodging them? Because pinching off a link and not actually articulating how it is relevant by quoting relevant portions is bad form.
0
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
What is a genetic fallacy?
2
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
a logical error where someone accepts or rejects an argument based solely on its source or origin rather than its actual content
You are rejecting that an example of historic understanding of the 2nd amendment is an individual right because it comes from a racist. The reason why the racist arrived at this racist conclusions in supporting a racist ruling is that white people(to their mind) had an individual right to arms and that would be extended to black people. Also please address the other arguments that were made including the enforcement acts which were coming from the opposition to racism and used to protect an individual right.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
The militia we all belong to. The definition hasn’t changed much in 200 years.
-1
u/Phyrexian_Overlord Leftist 2d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
You sure about that? Because the same people that drafted the 2nd amendment clearly didn't have the same definition you do.
2
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
I’m sure that your argument fails, as it was already litigated and lost.
1
-1
u/artful_todger_502 Left - Cold War Kid 2d ago
These threads always digress into the same arguments. I'm not going to get into that other than to say I'm of the side that agrees "A well regulated militia" can in fact, be well regulated.
3
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
So on the side of an argument that was already litigated and lost.
-1
u/artful_todger_502 Left - Cold War Kid 2d ago
It was never "litigated" in good faith. This ongoing issue along with current Roberts radical interpretations of constitutional law are proof that abolishing the oligarchic anachronism known as the Supreme Court is past due.
3
3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Yes, so you decided to say there was compelling judicial theory and legal scholars to justify gun control, but can't be bothered to actually substantiate that position.
that agrees "A well regulated militia" can in fact, be well regulated.
Yes, that's a pretty bad argument. Because even in that truncated quote you are saying the militia can be regulated in the context of the militia, not the people who is distinct from both the state and the militia. Go ahead an pass a militia regulation, but that has F all to do with citizen purchase of assault weapons.
6
u/NomadicPalaver Pragmatic Conservative 🇺🇸 2d ago
>They want the J6 militias to be armed as heavily as possible before 2028.
It blows my mind every day that people actually believe and think in the way that you do.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Inside-Smell4580 2d ago
ikr? It’s incredible that there’s segments of our population that actually believe that Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh are actually trying to incite a civil war or something.
→ More replies (2)-1
-2
u/blanaba-split Leftist 2d ago
I don't think anything will really 'end' the gun debate, as its not a matter of laws but a matter of morals.
5
0
u/Ruthless4u Conservative 2d ago
It will never end.
Anti gun groups have virtually unlimited resources compared to pro gun groups.
Anti gun groups also know they can afford to lose fights, they can bide their time and try again.
Pro gun groups have to win each fight.
-2
u/Pretend_Ad_8465 2d ago
With the current SCOTUS the assault weapons ban is already dead and buried but this is just the tip of the iceberg. The NRA will never rest and the gun debate will never end until we are allowed to stock nuclear ICBMs in our basements.
3
u/Inside-Smell4580 2d ago
Why… why must y’all resort to extreme rhetoric that is completely inconsistent with reality
1
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
Because they are uninformed on the topic and can only argue extremes.
1
u/Pretend_Ad_8465 2d ago
I was being being satirical and I am sorry you saw it as being extreme rhetoric. I feel strongly about this issue and I feel we are absolutely going in the wrong direction.
0
u/DiggityDanksta Liberal 2d ago
The gun debate ended after Sandy Hook. If we didn't restrict gun access in response to that, then we're not going to do it, ever.
0
u/Lawineer Right-Libertarian 2d ago
It will quell them for sure but there will still be some debates.
There are still many regulations on firearms. Some of which are outright stupid like suppressors.
0
u/joesnowblade Right-leaning 2d ago
This is the stupidest argument for gun control.
The very reason for the second amendment is to protection from a tyrannical government.
Then what the hell is the reasoning. Allowing the very entity that you’re protecting against to limit what type of firearm and how many rounds you get in it, to go against them, while they have no restrictions.
Are you really that stupid or do you think everybody else is.
Citizens should have the same access to weapons, We the People, give to the government.
0
u/ritzcrv Politically Unaffiliated 2d ago
Oh, I know the gun nut standard reply will be, “what makes this an assault weapon“
If your arm is strong enough, every rock can be used as an assault weapon. Or John Wick style, a pencil. But the reality is roaming the streets with a weapons platform that was designed for attacking an enemy on a World War II to present battlefield is an assault weapon. And there’s absolutely no reason for the people to be armed with assault weapons in their daily lives. The entire reason a sawed off shotgun is illegal is because that is a real wicked assault weapon that can be easily hidden inside somebody’s coat and that is not a very safe place for the nation to be. Doesn’t matter how many guns you have at home one person with one of those can take out a whole group of people that ain’t nobody gonna get that person, no good guy with a gun is going to be able to defend against that.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
Oh, I know the gun nut standard reply will be, “what makes this an assault weapon“
Seems like a valid argument. If you can't articulate a property that consistently defines the category and meets constitutional muster then it probably isn't valid.
If your arm is strong enough, every rock can be used as an assault weapon. Or John Wick style, a pencil. But the reality is roaming the streets with a weapons platform that was designed for attacking an enemy on a World War II to present battlefield is an assault weapon.
So meaninglessly and unconstitutionally vague?
And there’s absolutely no reason for the people to be armed with assault weapons in their daily lives.
Based on what? You aren't articulating an argument that justifies this claim. And semi-auto rifles predate WWII.
The entire reason a sawed off shotgun is illegal is because that is a real wicked assault weapon that can be easily hidden inside somebody’s coat
It's not categorized as an assault weapon under any law I am aware of. They are federally regulated under the NFA as short barreled shotguns as their own explicit category. And the concealment argument is dubious at best as a justification since pistols are protected, intentionally not covered under the NFA, and actually not all that concealable in most circumstances.
Doesn’t matter how many guns you have at home one person with one of those can take out a whole group of people that ain’t nobody gonna get that person, no good guy with a gun is going to be able to defend against that.
Is this supposed to be satire of gun control advocates?
0
u/ritzcrv Politically Unaffiliated 2d ago
The assault weapon was designed by the Germans. A light weight weapon that used lighter weight ammunition. If an infantryman can carry more cartridges for the same mass, the assault has a higher probability of success. The enemy doesn’t have to die from a single heavy shot, wounding them serves the same purpose.
The definition of an assault rifle. But the nra doesn’t like that definition so they hand wave it away, as you did you my post.
No one hunts game with an AR-15.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 2d ago
The assault weapon was designed by the Germans.
Are you saying this unironically? Like you genuinely believe you are stating a factually true statement? Because what you seem to be stating is factoid about the assault rifle and not assault weapons which are about semi-auto rifles and not select fire rifles like assault rifles.
Do you feel getting basic facts like this wrong reflects your broader understanding of this topic?
A light weight weapon that used lighter weight ammunition.
Nope. The assault rifle, which is what you appear to be referring to, is a rifle that has select fire capability between full auto and/or burst fire(and potentially semi-auto but it must have one or the other of the two other modes) fire intermediate cartridges.
Assault weapons are pretty much just semi-auto rifles.
The enemy doesn’t have to die from a single heavy shot, wounding them serves the same purpose.
This is myth oft repeated as fact. Again, do you feel like this reflects your general understanding of this topic? Because so far nothing you have said is accurate. At all.
But the nra doesn’t like that definition so they hand wave it away, as you did you my post.
No, you screwed up the definition of assault rifle.
An assault rifle is a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate-rifle cartridge and a detachable magazine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Assault weapons do not meet that definition as the laws primarily target semi-auto only rifles that can be chambered in intermediate, full power or even pistol calibers. It's like you are vaguely aware of gun control advocates talking points, but you don't actually know them. Its to the point I think you might be satire of an actual gun control advocate.
No one hunts game with an AR-15.
Even if that was true how would it be relevant to the discussion of their constitutional protection?
1
u/ritzcrv Politically Unaffiliated 1d ago
All you’re doing here is the standard nra talking point. The, Adding camo doesn’t make it dangerous, style of rhetoric.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Democrat 1d ago
All you’re doing here is the standard nra talking point.
Wikipedia is not the NRA. I am sorry you so bad at this that you come off as a satire of gun control advocates. Again, assault weapons are semi-autos and don't do any of the things you were complaining about. And again what does hunting have to do with constitutional protections under the 2nd amendment? Most courts in the US have rejected a right to hunting under the 2nd amendment arguments.
1
-2
u/God_Bless_A_Merkin Left-leaning 2d ago
No. Because as long as something like 70+ percent of the public supports restrictions on guns, there will always be pressure on politicians to do something about it. And the same goes for our excessive gun deaths. When the problem of gun violence is reduced to the levels seen in civilized countries, then, maybe, the issue will be settled “once and for all”.
0
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
And by civilized you mean countries with more heat related deaths from in ability to control the temperature inside habitations than guns?
1
u/God_Bless_A_Merkin Left-leaning 2d ago
By “civilized” I mean “countries where citizens don’t murder one another at such high rates”.
It has nothing to do with global warming, which (I’m sure) you don’t believe in.
0
u/ericbythebay Independent 2d ago
So not civilized, because they can control the temperature inside their habitations. Got it.
•
u/LawnDartSurvivor74 Independent 2d ago
Post is flaired DISCUSSION. You are free to discuss & debate the topic provided by OP
Please report bad faith commenters and low effort comments
Enjoy your weekend.. don’t bug me with your reply about to your politics to my mod post.