Kagan and 8 other SC justices agree: "Assault weapons" are "in common use".

Did you see what Kagan put in the decision?
Her opinion?
And what the -entire- court agreed to?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1141_lkgn.pdf

From the holding

Finally, Mexico’s allegations about design and marketing decisions
add nothing of consequence. Mexico focuses on production of “military
style” assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and pur-
chased by ordinary consumers

The Supreme Court stated, in a holding, that "military style 'assault weapons' " are
"widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers".

That is..."In common use".

From the opinion:

Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’
“design and marketing decisions” add nothing of conse-
quence. Brief for Respondent 23. As noted above, Mexico
here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military
style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 ri-
fles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra,
at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are
both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.
(The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T.
Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the
U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.)

That is..."In common use".

You better believe every legal argument against bans on 'assault weapons' will include this text, including whatever case may happen to go before the court.

 

yeah and that puts AR 15s clearly under the protective umbrella of Heller, McDonald and Caetano

 

It's hardly surprising the Supreme Court shot down this argument in the Mexican government's lawsuit, but it does not really represent any meaningful new "precedent".

I doubt this will be considered the main or strongest argument in the lawsuit.

 

the Mexican bullshit was clearly barred by federal law-as Kagan correctly noted. The importance of her claim is that it will be hard for HER to later claim AR 15 style rifles are not under the case law protection of weapons in common use for lawful purposes

 

The statements are direct, relevant, and unanimous.

 

So? Antique firearms are widely legal and the people buying them are ordinary citizens. Whether or not they're in common use is another matter. I doubt this ruling is enough to persuade the lower courts to reverse course. State level assault weapons bans will remain intact.

 

The relevance of the decision is explained in the last line of the OP.

 

they are going to get shot down soon enough by the USSC

 

A state AWB will make it before the court.
An attorney will make the argument that 'assault weapons' are "in common use for traditionally lawful purposes" and thus qualify as "bearable arms", protected by the constitution
Kagan will ask "what evidence do you have they are in 'common use."?
The attorney will quote her holding, and her opinion, in this case.
"Madam Justice, in S&W v Estados Umidos Maxicanos, you, in the 9-0 holding you penned, said..."

 

yeah and since there are eight other justices that will be a telling argument. However, many years ago, a tax protestor (a sovereign citizen) refused to comply with an IRS summons. Two different magistrate judges (one was retiring, then the one who took his place) both issued report/recommendation to the court that the protestor was in contempt of the court's order that he comply. So I went before the judge and he said WHO FOUND THIS MAN IN CONTEMPT. I said you did, your honor (this judge had a reputation for being erratic and off the rails sometimes). HE SAID "I did not such thing". So I handed him a certified copy of the order. He wasn't happy with me. General Counsel for the IRS Northern District siting at the government's table with me did his best not to smirk

 

Except she didn't say that assault weapons are in common use.

 

You may have to wait until there is a split in the lower courts before the Supreme Court intervenes. So far appellate courts have found no conflict between the Second Amendment and state bans on assault weapons.

 

not exactly true and since there already has been USSC rulings those rogue circuit courts have ignored, its time for the USSC to slap those scumbags around

 

Perhaps. But bans on ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 will be struck down.

She did say that ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 are in common use.

 

Its OK if you missed the point, just so long as you didn't miss it on purpose.

You'd -never- do that. Right?.

The cited language form the cited ruling leads to the inescapable conclusion* that 'assault weapons' are "in common use"

* Assuming the reader is intellectually honest, of course.

 

The AR 15 is the most popular centerfire rifle in US history and has been made by more manufacturers then any other rifle some of the makers I personally own or have used include

1) Colt (the original civilian AR 15)
2) Armalite ( a trade name sold to the current maker by the company Gene Stoner was with when he designed the AR 15)
3) DPMS
4) Olympic Arms
5) Springfield Armory
6) Rock River Arms
7) HM Defense (a brand I endorse)
Faxon Arms (another brand I endorse-I use their 9mm PCC competitively)
9) Daniel Defense (top of the Line)
10) Wilson Arms
11) Noveske Arms
12) Anderson (like HM and Faxon-near where I live)
13) Heckler and Koch
14) SIG
15) Palmetto State Armory
16) FN-USA
17) Spikes Tactical
1 BCM


Now that list is based purely on AR rifles I have owned or shot, I am sure there a bunch others I am forgetting

 

Each and every one of these courts failed to find said conflict because each and every one of them ignored precedent from the SC.

 

Antique firearms are in common use. Assault weapon means nothing. It implies falsely that people are using machine guns

 

The logic is sound. But what recourse do we have if the SC just ignores logic ...or just avoids the issue entirely by never taking an AWB case, like they've been doing for decades?

Clearly 'shall not be infringed' is not the SC interpretation, so their interpretation could literally be anything else.

 

Then the NRA keeps pressuring lawmakers in most of the nation to not pass any additional gun control, and people are screwed in far left states where the NRA has no hold over lawmakers.

And hopefully we are going to see two terms of President Vance after President Trump completes his second term. This will provide an opportunity to place more conservatives on the Supreme Court.

 

What percentage of the population uses antique firearms?

They are semi-automatic assault rifles.

"Assault weapons did not 'just happen.' They were developed to meet specific combat needs. All assault weapons—military and civilian alike—incorporate specific features that were designed to provide a specific military combat function. That military function is laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as 'hosing down' an area. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting firearms."
https://vpc.org/publications/bullet...s-so-bad-about-semiautomatic-assault-weapons/

 

So because many states allow ordinary people to own assault weapons all states should allow ordinary people to do so? But if no states allowed people to own assault weapons then it would be okay for the bans to remain intact? Your argument is absurdly circular.

 

Your argument, on the other hand, is absurdly off topic. Assault weapons were outlawed nationwide in 1986. This thread is about ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15.

 

Why are you talking about antique weapons? Seems rather off topic in a thread about modern hunting rifles.

State and local bans on modern hunting rifles like the AR-15, on the other hand, will be struck down.

People who support such bans need to be tried for their crimes and sentenced to prison.

 

Why are you talking about antique weapons? Seems rather off topic in a thread about modern hunting rifles.

Fake news. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Everything that VPC says is a lie. Although the fact that they said it is evidence that the opposite is true.