Before deciding whether government may ban a commonly owned firearm, shouldn’t government first identify where the Constitution grants it that authority?
WASHINGTON — If gun owners had a magic lamp and three wishes, likely all three wishes would be for the Supreme Court to hear a case addressing so-called “assault weapons” bans, and today the Supreme Court granted that wish by agreeing to hear two consolidated cases on the issue, one out of Illinois and the other out of Connecticut. This will be the first ever case heard by the court specifically addressing bans on AR-15-style rifles.
On Tuesday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review) in Viramontes v. Cook County (out of Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (out of Connecticut). The cases are two separate challenges that the Court consolidated for briefing, argument, and decision, in essence agreeing to hear them at the same time and address their shared core constitutional question, whether the government has a right to restrict Americans from owning America’s most popular style of semi-automatic rifles, the AR-15 and similar platforms, and whether states’ prohibitions on ownership are constitutional.
Americans have been eagerly awaiting Supreme Court intervention to finally address both the numerous outstanding bans in jurisdictions around the country (for example in New Jersey, Illinois, New York), as well as a bevy of new bans that have popped up in liberal states attempting to do the same in just the past couple of years, such as Virginia, Delaware, Washington, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
(One note worth making: “assault weapons” bans and “high capacity magazine” bans almost always come as a pair. Not here. The magazine question is not part of either petition, and the Court kept the questions it agreed to answer focused squarely on the rifles, leaving the magazine bans for another day.)
By News2ATeam
