There are millions of Ford F150 pickup trucks on the roads of America. More than 41 million F-150s have been sold since the truck was introduced 76 years ago. The F series has been the best-selling truck in the U.S. for 47 years, and the best-selling vehicle of any kind in the U.S. for 42 years. If you walk out your front door and look around, you will probably seen a few F150s within the first few minutes outside.
That’s important, because with all of that popularity, one needs to remember that there are more AR patterned rifles in the US than there are F-150 pickups. Despite those facts, the Fourth district court of appeals has allowed that state’s ban on the AR-15 to remain in place because, the court ruled, the AR pattern rifle is “highly unusual.”
This means that the concept of Assault Weapons bans is heading to SCOTUS and is likely to appear on the court’s docket this term. The case, Bianchi v. Brown, is being brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
17 Comments
Mike C · August 10, 2024 at 5:18 am
I shot competitively in high school, but when I arrived in basic training and was handed my (made by Mattel) M16, it was the first weapon that I had ever held that was specifically designed to kill. That was entirely appropriate. AR15s, and most pistols have that same function. In Bruen, the court found in a very common sense way that the second amendment was to protect citizen access to these weapons. AR15s have the utility from a price point, reliability, and usability to be the perfect self defense tool for most people.
Now do SBRs, because they too are outlawed not because of their function, but because of their looks. Rifles are legal in my state, pistols are legal in my state, but if I put a pistol length AR upper on a rifle lower I have a SBR and i’m a potential federal felon. It’s the same “it looks scary” principle. Unfortunately, that will take a different case because the court is usually very careful to rule narrowly on these things.
M · August 10, 2024 at 7:08 pm
I am a little dissappointed that the brace rule was overturned.
I would have enjoyed the ATF making SBRs absurdly common and putting the NFA and GCA on shakier ground.
D · August 11, 2024 at 11:39 am
I’m going to nitpick this sentence:
> I shot competitively in high school, but when I arrived in basic training and was handed my (made by Mattel) M16, it was the first weapon that I had ever held that was specifically designed to kill.
Like…you talked to them and they said “this one isn’t for hunting or target practice–it’s only designed to kill”? Did they elaborate further on which kinds of people the gun was designed to kill? Maybe based on race, religion or skin color? Did you try to shoot a deer with it and it failed to work because it wasn’t designed for hunting?
Guns aren’t designed to kill. They aren’t designed for hunting. They aren’t designed for target practice. They’re designed to allow you to point it at something–regardless of it being human being an animal or an inanimate object (whatever you decide), ignite a charge, and propel a projectile. It doesn’t care about skin color, religious beliefs, or political stances.
Tread on The Serpent · August 10, 2024 at 5:53 am
And the global Soviet Trojan horse UN says they will help confiscate?
How many years and good luck with new cannon fodder recruits.
Keep your sporks ready the Final Season is here.
Happy Happy Halloween Silver Shamrock.
Freedom isn’t free and you have to fight, fight, fight.
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luke 10:19
Noway2 · August 10, 2024 at 9:00 am
Tyrants are going to tyrant. It may go to SCOTUS but dollars to donuts sats they’ll refuse to take it up.
Henry · August 10, 2024 at 9:33 am
We’ve reached an unfortunate and probably dangerous point in this country where the president openly defies SCOTUS and then brags about it, and lesser courts and state legislatures brazenly defy SCOTUS decisions. In both instances, it’s done knowing that eventually SCOTUS is likely to rule against them, but in the meantime it means typically years of defiance go unpunished. The rule of law means whatever the left feels like getting away with.
oldvet50 · August 11, 2024 at 7:31 am
I’ve got an idea! Since the Executive Branch has a Police Force (FBI, Secret Service, etc.) and the Legislative Branch has a Police Force (Capital Police), in order to make the three branches equivalent again, why not form a Supreme Court Police Force. Then try to defy their rule again!
Divemedic · August 11, 2024 at 10:47 am
The Soviets did something similar to balance power in their government.
The Kremlin was guarded by three different units. I am going by memory because I can’t find a source, but this is how I recall it:
The first was the Kremlin Regiment, owned and run by the Army. They had only light weapons, but the best training.
The second was the KGB. They had the best weapons, but were not well trained in combat.
The third was the Guard troops. They were ethnic Russians, had light weapons and poor training, but were the most numerous.
This system was set up to ensure that no one security unit was more powerful than the other.
JoshO · August 11, 2024 at 3:52 pm
I’ve wondered along similar lines of thought, like maybe each branch needs a regiment of MPs or gendarms or something…
lynn · August 10, 2024 at 2:34 pm
One can only hope. And that it is a SCOTUS not packed by the dumbrocrats.
Divemedic · August 11, 2024 at 10:33 am
If they DO pack the court, it won’t matter. I think everyone will realize that the takeover is complete. What happens from there, happens.
Danny · August 10, 2024 at 5:17 pm
They don’t want your AR-15.
They want to kill your family.
The AR-15 is just an obstacle.
TRX · August 10, 2024 at 7:23 pm
My copy of the Constitution just says “arms”. Not a word about “unusual.” Doesn’t say anything about felonies, child support payments, or red flags either.
Also note that the AR platform has been in US military service longer than any rifle since the Revolution; 60 years so far. (*) It’s an antique still doing being made and issued as new.
(*) the US Navy used some Trapdoor Springfields “line throwers” until some time after WWII, but they were not being used as rifles, so I figure that doesn’t count
Divemedic · August 11, 2024 at 10:35 am
I do believe that firearms rights CAN be removed from a person once they have had due process, just as we deprive people of other rights after a jury trial and with due process.
We use jury trials to deprive people of property, freedom, and even their lives. I don’t see arms as being something that can’t be taken from them.
Noway2 · August 11, 2024 at 11:27 am
I would counter with: if someone is too dangerous to be allowed to posses weapons then they are too dangerous to be allowed out in free society.
Divemedic · August 11, 2024 at 11:54 am
In some cases, those overlap.
– People in prison can’t have weapons (even though some manage anyhow), so there is clearly an ability to remove 2A rights with due process.
– People who are too infirm or have other psychiatric problems can be denied certain rights, to include weapons.
– and yes, there are some people who can be denied weapons but we as a society can’t afford to keep them locked up.
Again, if there is a court imposed punishment arrived at following a jury trial that afforded the defendant due process, I can see where it would be Constitutional to deprive them of the RKBA. As my evidence, I point to the due process clause:
The founders obviously intended that people should have life, liberty, and property denied to them under certain circumstances.
It’s easy to make a blanket statement like the one you made, but the world isn’t always so easy.
Aesop · August 13, 2024 at 2:27 am
“We find this to be an arbitrary and capricious ruling…” in 3, 2, …
I’m seriously waiting on the SCOTUS majority, tiring of all the rampant B./S> the Circus Courts keep shatting out, to simple issue the following ruling, posted here in its entirety:
“As an aid to the lower courts, this court henceforth finds the following two-step test solely and completely sufficient to determine the validity of any law affecting firearms and ammunition:
Step One: Did you pass this law after the year 1787?
Step Two: Yes? Then it’s unconstitutional, and moot.
‘Shall not be infringed’ means exactly what the Founders wrote, mother f***ers. Stop testing us, or you’re going to find out what “direct supervision” of your circuits can mean.
Love and kisses,
SCOTUS.”“
Comments are closed.