BIG NEWS: Supreme Court Considering Decision To End All Assault Weapon Bans | Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

Guys, we have some really good news, because the Supreme Court now has a case before it for review that could end all assault weapon bans in all ten states plus DC. This is something that is one of the cases that the Supreme Court, when they ruled on Bruin, they granted Sir Shirari, which means, yeah, we’re gonna acknowledge this case. We’re gonna take it up. They vacated the decision of the fourth Circuit, which said that assault weapon bans could stand.

And they remanded it back to the fourth Circuit and said, you need to redecide this case based off of what we told you in the Bruin decision, which is that you shall not rule this case based off of intermediate scrutiny. You shall use text history and tradition. And this is shaping up to be something major right now. But first, I wanted to share a report that I recently read from our sponsor, Lear capital.

It’s called $3,200 gold. And I got to tell you, guys and gals, it’s pretty interesting. It explains the correlation between our rising debt and the rising price of gold. It’s no secret that the american government is addicted to printing money, and they’re not going to stop. There’s no president or politician who can make it stop anytime soon either. And if you believe that like I do, then I encourage you to call now and get the free report to understand how rising debt means rising gold.

Make some money, guys and gals, it’s great information from my friends ilier capital. There’s absolutely no obligation to purchase. It’s just free education that they provide for our viewers here. And with all the volatility out there, if you’ve been considering gold, now is a great time to look into it. Many of you have made purchases. I’ve invested myself. I’ve bought gold and silver, and boy, am I glad I did.

Trust me, it’s easy to do it. All you got to do is call 1802 605075. Again, 1802 605075, or head over to leargg. com to learn more. And a big thank you to Lear capital for standing by what this channel does. All right, guys, this case that is before the supreme Court right now is the Bianchi v. Frosh, Maryland assault weapon ban. And this was brought in front of the Supreme Court.

A writ for Sir Shiorari by the second Amendment foundation in conjunction with Firearms policy Coalition. Now, a quick history on this case. This case, Bianchi v. Frosh, actually, and I’ve reported on both of these cases I’m about to tell you on, so you can search on my channel and learn more. This case came after the first assault weapon ban case. That was Colby v. Hogan. And that case, long story short, the district court said the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional.

The Fourth Circuit jumped in and overturned it and said no because these assault weapons are very capable for military service. I’m paraphrasing now, then we can put more restrictions on them and thus they are not covered by the Second Amendment. I’ve done videos on that. You may recall that case, Bianchi v. Frosh, came after that. And initially it was dismissed by the district court because they had that Colby case, which was sitting there saying, yeah, these are not protected by the Second Amendment.

So it was dismissed at the district level, it was appealed. The Fourth Circuit said, yeah, there’s that Colby thing and we’re not going to be able to do this. Then it was appealed. Standing before the Supreme Court, when they did the Bruin decision, they granted the GVR, granted, Sir Shiari vacated and remanded the Bianchi case back to the fourth, where the fourth circuit three judge panel heard the case and then crickets.

13 months went by and a decision was never rendered by that three judge panel. And now the Fourth Circuit onbonk panel said, you know what, we’re just going to take this case now and they’re going to try to delay it, just like the 9th Circuit’s doing in California with their assault weapon ban and the magazine ban and everything else. And you know the story, I’ve been reporting on it for years.

And the 7th Circuit, Illinois, with their ban. So now the Second Amendment foundation is saying, you know what, Supreme Court, you guys and gals have said that this case was important enough that you sent it back and told them to rehear it based off of Bruin, and they’re not doing that. And this now is before the Supreme Court. And all ten states and DC that have an assault weapon ban should be paying attention.

I always had to write them down. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and of course the District of Columbia. I also want to say, I’m going to show you the case real quick, just a couple of paragraphs. But I also want to say that about 35% of the people who view this channel don’t subscribe. And if you guys and gals love the second amendment, consider subscribing to the channel, because it helps the channel grow.

It doesn’t cost you a nickel. And I would really love to hit that 700,000 mark here. It would be a goal that I set two years ago, and to be able to hit it would be amazing. So thank you for your consideration. Here is the question that second Amendment foundation have presented to the Supreme Court, and they want to know whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes.

Great question. Pointed. And it looks like they’re saying to the Supreme Court, hey, let’s get it on. Let’s forget the BS all the back and forth. Why don’t you put it to bed now? I also wanted you to see this. This is the petition for the Rita Sartiari. It says, from the founding of this nation, the rifle has been a paradigmatic american arm, facilitating the struggle for independence from the british and serving as the companion and the tutelary protector of the westward pioneers.

The modern iteration of this paragmatic arm is epitomized by the AR 15 style rifle, a semiautomatic firearm that is popular for self defense, hunting, and range training due to its accuracy, ease of use, and ergonomic design. Indeed, AR fifteen s and similar semiautomatic rifles are the best selling rifles in the history of the nation. They are owned by millions of Americans and have accounted for approximately 20% of all firearm sales in the country over a decade.

Despite the utility and popularity of semiautomatic rifles, a small minority of states, such as Maryland, have sought to ban them. But under Heller, these bans are blatantly unconstitutional. After all, Heller established that law abiding americans have an absolute right to possess and use firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes, and semiautomatic rifles plainly fit the bill. In short, semiautomatic rifles have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today, and are thus protected under Heller.

Despite the patent unconstitutionality of semiautomatic rifle bans under Heller, the federal courts of appeals strained to uphold those bans. In the wake of that decision. Some did so by applying the intermediate scrutiny framework that this court repudiated in Bruin. Others seized upon language from Heller that weapons most useful in military service or devised a bespoke three part test, each component of which clashed with Heller, to justify bans of these extraordinarily popular civilian arms.

These attempts to evade the clear import of Heller led two justices of this court to call for summary reversal of a decision upholding a semiautomatic rifle ban following Bruin. The unconstitutionality of semiautomatic rifle bans is clearer than ever, for in Bruin, the conceited fact that handguns are in common use today for lawful purposes was sufficient to establish constitutional protection of the type of arm at issue in that case.

And Bruin further explained that colonial bans on dangerous and unusual weapons could not justify laws restricting the use of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today. To the extent any doubt about the constitutionality of bans on common arms was left by Heller, Bruin eliminated it. And yet today, a year and a half after Bruin, history is repeating itself as the federal courts of appeals are failing to heed the clear teaching of this court’s precedents, the 7th Circuit somehow concluded that its decision in Friedman is basically compatible with Bruin and embraced the Fourth Circuit’s pre Bruin most useful in military service test to refuse to enjoin Illinois’ban on modern semiautomatic rifles and other arms.

An onbonk panel of the 9th Circuit reached out to stay an injunction against a California law restricting the capacity of ammunition magazines, and a panel of that court is holding a case challenging California’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles and other firearms pending the outcome of Duncan. If history is any guide, the Anbank court is unlikely to rule in favor of the Second Amendment. The actions of the Fourth Circuit below in this case are the most brazen.

Yet the Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s claims by applying that court’s precedent in Colby. Petitioners sought review in this court, and this court granted review, vacated the decision below, and remanded for further consideration in light of Bruin. Consistent with the remand order, a panel of the Fourth Circuit heard argument in December of 2022. In January of 2024, however, the court issued not an opinion, but rather an order granting rehearing enbanc despite no party requesting the court to do so.

The only plausible explanation is that a majority of the enbanc court was not pleased with the outcome that the panel was prepared to reach and given the court’s grant of anbank rehearing in another case in which the panel ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, it appears that the Anbank court was seeking to avoid a similar opinion. Even seeing the light of day nearly 16 years after Heller, the time is ripe for this court to establish what should have been cleared the day that decision was released.

Bans on firearms commonly possessed by law abiding citizens are simply off the table. The application of that principle to this case is plain. Modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR 15 traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions and today are owned in the tens of millions by law abiding Americans for self defense and other lawful purposes. Such arms simply cannot be banned. While granting Sir Shiarari before judgment is not standard operating procedure, the situation facing the court is atypical.

A fundamental right is at stake. The proper outcome is clear, and the behavior of the lower courts indicates that this court’s intervention likely is necessary for that fundamental right to be vindicated. This court should grant, review and hold that Maryland semi automatic rifle ban is unconstitutional, and that’s that. This case has huge implications for y’all in Massachusetts, for y’all in California, and everywhere else that I mentioned earlier that bans a gun because it looks scary.

Oogie boogie, guys and gals. If you want to stay up to date in this case, then subscribe to this channel down below. I will bring it to you as it unfolds. And if you are into the Second Amendment and want to hear more about litigation, some lawsuits or legislation, some bills and laws, and how they could help us or hurt us, then subscribe to guns and gadgets down below and I’ll keep you in the loop, guys and gals, till we see each other again.

Have a phenomenal day. Take care. .

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.