Supreme Court Grants Cert in Two ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Cases

“…The percolation has finally come to an end. After years of dodging the issue, the Supreme Court announced today — the last day of its 2025/2026 session — that it will hear two “assault weapon” ban cases next term. SCOTUS will consolidate Viramontes v. Cook County, a Seventh Circuit (Illinois) case and Grant v. Higgins from the Second Circuit (Connecticut).

That means the Court will finally decide the constitutionality of banning America’s favorite rifle, along with other commonly owned and used firearms that politicians and the civilian disarmament industrial complex have tendentiously branded as weapons of war as justification for outlawing them.

This is a moment that the gun rights community has been waiting for since Bruen was handed down in 2022. Last year, when the Court refused to hear two other hardware cases, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a point of writing that the denial didn’t mean the Court agreed with lower courts upholding the bans . . .

I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade. And, further percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR–15s appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

Exactly. And during all of the subsequent percolation, five more states have enacted “assault weapons” bans, bringing the total to 12 plus the District of Columbia. So it is now long past time for the Court to settle the matter once and for all…”

‘Ro’ Me the Money! How Progressive Class Warrior Ro Khanna Lives Like the Oligarchs He ‘Fights,’ With In-Home Elevator, $190K Range Rover, and Family-Owned Golf Courses

Justice Kavanaugh May Have Handed the United States a Roadmap to Fix Birthright Citizenship

“…Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down President Trump’s executive order but wrote separately in partial dissent. He concluded the order conflicted with existing federal law, not that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, he also outlined a framework for addressing concerns surrounding birthright citizenship through legislation, making clear that any path to lasting change would likely require an act of Congress…”

Related. What does a problem solver do? Find a work around:

Trump Plans Assault On Birth Tourism After Letdown At SCOTUS

Can Trump get the lazy Republicans to get off their asses?

Trump, Congressional GOP Propose a Workaround to Save Citizenship Despite SCOTUS