The United States of America wants a microphone on December 2 in front of the US Supreme Court.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the Supreme Court for ten minutes of oral argument in the consolidated AR-15 ban cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—so the federal government can tell the justices, in person, that categorical bans on America’s most popular rifle violate the Second Amendment. Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner is treating that request as a tell.
Filing an amicus brief is a letter.
Standing at the lectern is a fight.
The Court has scheduled one hour of arguments in the case for December 2. Sauer’s proposal is simple: twenty minutes for the gun-owner petitioners, ten for the United States, and thirty for Cook County and Connecticut.
The plaintiffs have consented. The jurisdictions trying to keep the gun bans in place have not been reported as eager partners. The Court hasn’t yet granted the motion, but almost surely will.
This matters because the last several administrations used the Solicitor General’s office to defend gun control in virtually every circumstance. This time, they’re attacking it.
Sauer has already filed an amicus brief on behalf of the government arguing that a firearms restriction survives only if it fits the nation’s historical tradition, and that tradition doesn’t allow a ban on arms in common use for lawful purposes. The AR-15, the brief says, is “the most popular rifle in the country.” Sale or possession of one can’t be made a crime in Connecticut or Cook County without violating the Constitution.
Smith’s point is larger than two local statutes. If the Court holds that the platform is protected—semi-automatic operation, detachable magazine, ordinary furniture—then the next dodge dies along with it. Ban the same gun by banning certain features. Ban the magazines that make the rifle work as designed. Call the result “reasonable regulation.”
The United States is already warning the justices not to write an opinion so narrow that politicians can outlaw the rifle by other means. Magazines are not a side issue in that fight. They are how an AR-15 is an AR-15.
Twenty-seven states have told the Court the same thing: legislatures don’t get to decide that citizens don’t “need” a common arm. Survey data already in the record puts tens of millions of these rifles in civilian hands. “Dangerous and unusual” is a conjunctive test. Common arms fail the second half. Heller said so. Bruen said how to apply it. And Sauer wants ten minutes to say it out loud in front of the Justices while the other side is standing there.
I continue to get what I voted for. And my expectations have been widely and happyly exceded.
And yes I know the gun owning libertarian crystal meth users, are never going to be happy.
Because their drug is still illegal.
“I continue to get what I voted for.”
Same here.
“And my expectations have been widely and happyly exceded. ”
WILDLY exceeded, here. If you had told me in 2015 that the 90 year-old NFA would be mostly gutted now because of a guy with ZERO political experience, I would have told you that you were CRAZY. But it’s not that crazy, Regan was just a mediocre Hollywood B actor.
To this day, I might be standing in a line somewhere and reflect on the past 10 years, and just start to giggle like an eight year-old school girl, because they never saw this, or HIM, coming… 😉
Depends on if he’ll be as much of a weasel as Cylde of Georgia and the rest of Congress: Pretending to be pro-2A but the moment you read it’s clearly actually “Please don’t throw out Miller” (seriously: Everything in that brief is an appeal to Miller, treating the most blatant act of corruption in SCotUS history as gospel)
“Ban the same gun by banning certain features. Ban the magazines that make the rifle work as designed. Call the result “reasonable regulation.””
This is WHY they must include magazines with their ruling, and anything else that can be attached to firearms.
The justices have an opportunity to kill many birds with one stone, here. Entire platforms like Glock, magazine capacity, etc, etc, et-fvcking cetera.
I really hope Alito and Thomas have some ideas on how to really hit the Leftist Scum ™ where it hurts them the most….
Until SCOTUS confronts them, the Ninth Circuit will continue to abuse gun owners by slow walking 2A cases. Look at how they are just sitting on the appeals of Benitez’s rulings (which were final decisions with fact findings). They know they probably cannot reverse them without undoing some major jurisprudential concepts), so instead they just let them sit for years.
SCOTUS could easily neutralize this tactic by granting motions on the shadow docket to lift the stays pending appeal, which would allow Benitez’s permanent injunctions against enforcement of the laws to go into effect while the 9th Circuit twiddles their thumbs. But unfortunately Roberts and Barrett lack the spine to do that.
“SCOTUS could easily neutralize this tactic by granting motions on the shadow docket to lift the stays pending appeal, which would allow Benitez’s permanent injunctions against enforcement of the laws to go into effect while the 9th Circuit twiddles their thumbs. But unfortunately Roberts and Barrett lack the spine to do that.”
Doesn’t that just open the door to them returning the favor once they regain power?
I’m not so naive to think we’ll always be in control of the high Court…