Supreme court declines to hear case on legality of AR-15’s but indicates they will soon

Bigfoot · Monday at 1:25 PM

Ten states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly restricting AR-15s. These states are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington

Celt · Monday at 2:07 PM

Kavanaugh.. pfft

turbobike · Monday at 3:07 PM

...indicates too hear it soon!....LOL.."checks in the mail" & "dog ate my homework"

Bigfoot · Monday at 3:22 PM

C3D · Monday at 4:51 PM

Bigfoot said:
Ten states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly restricting AR-15s. These states are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington

View attachment 267345

It's 11. Also Colorado

prambo · Monday at 5:12 PM

C3D said:
It's 11. Also Colorado

Communism seems to be spreading.....

JRtraderny · Monday at 5:41 PM

Bigfoot said:
Ten states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly restricting AR-15s. These states are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington

View attachment 267345

That leaves 39 or 40 states that believe in the Constitution be really hard for the SC court to ban anything especially after their own ruling in Bruen . If they adhere to Bruen then the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 are toast too .

JunkBoxFull · Monday at 7:10 PM

The SCOTUS is waiting for the other judges to rule, then they will pounce. But we`ve seen what pouncing does. Look at NY after NY v Bruen.

The whole damn government is just playing fukkin games with us. They always have, and they always will. Who`s gonna stop them?!?!?!

The best thing any of us can do, is just go about our daily business. If they wanna play games, let them. They will fail eventually.

It`s like that red headed step child everybody hates, but you ignore the little a-hole and stop caring about it.

prambo · Monday at 7:36 PM

JunkBoxFull said:
The SCOTUS is waiting for the other judges to rule, then they will pounce. But we`ve seen what pouncing does. Look at NY after NY v Bruen.

The whole damn government is just playing fukkin games with us. They always have, and they always will. Who`s gonna stop them?!?!?!

The best thing any of us can do, is just go about our daily business. If they wanna play games, let them. They will fail eventually.

It`s like that red headed step child everybody hates, but you ignore the little a-hole and stop caring about it.

Mosinitis · Monday at 9:02 PM

Almost pregnant.

IrishMick · Monday at 10:33 PM

Free Beer...Tomorrow!

Acer-m14 · Tuesday at 12:27 AM

The SCOTUS is bought n paid for because they cannot utter the following words ,,

"The people have a right to own the same weapons as the Government ; Nukes included "

spat · Tuesday at 12:45 AM

prambo said:
Communism seems to be spreading.....

View attachment 267347

Grimscale · Tuesday at 6:49 AM

JunkBoxFull said:
The SCOTUS is waiting for the other judges to rule, then they will pounce.

They aren't going to pounce.
They aren't going to do shit.

Kavanaugh indicates the court will soon decide...

No, they won't.
Somehow we managed to get a few pro-gun rulings. this court seems to be going out of their way to neuter those rulings as fast as they can.

And they seem far more interested in worrying about whatever drivel is coming out of Washington than they are the Rights of Americans.

The S.C. can have an emergency meeting to decide the fate of a MS-13 gang-banger who isn't even a U.S. citizen, yet can't take 5 minutes to accept Snope and state "owning guns are a Right, Maryland, and other anti-gun States, can fuck right the hell off"???
Now we get to wait another 1-2 YEARS while our Rights are trampled under tyrannical communist asshats like der eyebrows fuhrer. And even then I have absolutely ZERO expectation they will accept another case.

And all while the administration of our great saviour sits around having their mutual backslapping and proudly proclaiming how much winning they are doing.
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. News at 6, and 10, and 11, and any time they feel they need to get their faces on T.V. again.

prambo · Tuesday at 8:03 AM

Grimscale said:
They aren't going to pounce.
They aren't going to do shit.

Kavanaugh indicates the court will soon decide...

No, they won't.
Somehow we managed to get a few pro-gun rulings. this court seems to be going out of their way to neuter those rulings as fast as they can.

And they seem far more interested in worrying about whatever drivel is coming out of Washington than they are the Rights of Americans.

The S.C. can have an emergency meeting to decide the fate of a MS-13 gang-banger who isn't even a U.S. citizen, yet can't take 5 minutes to accept Snope and state "owning guns are a Right, Maryland, and other anti-gun States, can fuck right the hell off"???
Now we get to wait another 1-2 YEARS while our Rights are trampled under tyrannical communist asshats like der eyebrows fuhrer. And even then I have absolutely ZERO expectation they will accept another case.

And all while the administration of our great saviour sits around having their mutual backslapping and proudly proclaiming how much winning they are doing.
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. News at 6, and 10, and 11, and any time they feel they need to get their faces on T.V. again.

tirwin1 · Tuesday at 8:05 AM

Unbelievable. Kavanaugh just told everyone the court is busy so come back in a year or two.

Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We're Really Busy Now, Come Back In A Year Or Two

On December 1, 2020, the Maryland ban on AR-15s was challenged. The plaintiffs lost in the District Court and before the Fourth Circuit. In August 2024, a

reason.com

All these so called "conservative" justices are simply cowards or just city dwellers who never touched an icky gun in their life and seem appalled to actually rule in favor of the barbarians looking to uphold the constitution.

Why did the Dems fight against kavanaugh and Barret?

JunkBoxFull · Tuesday at 8:38 AM

Grimscale said:
They aren't going to pounce.
They aren't going to do shit.

Kavanaugh indicates the court will soon decide...

No, they won't.
Somehow we managed to get a few pro-gun rulings. this court seems to be going out of their way to neuter those rulings as fast as they can.

And they seem far more interested in worrying about whatever drivel is coming out of Washington than they are the Rights of Americans.

The S.C. can have an emergency meeting to decide the fate of a MS-13 gang-banger who isn't even a U.S. citizen, yet can't take 5 minutes to accept Snope and state "owning guns are a Right, Maryland, and other anti-gun States, can fuck right the hell off"???
Now we get to wait another 1-2 YEARS while our Rights are trampled under tyrannical communist asshats like der eyebrows fuhrer. And even then I have absolutely ZERO expectation they will accept another case.

And all while the administration of our great saviour sits around having their mutual backslapping and proudly proclaiming how much winning they are doing.
Nero fiddles while Rome burns. News at 6, and 10, and 11, and any time they feel they need to get their faces on T.V. again.

"great saviour"
Our only savior, is ourselves.

fresch · Tuesday at 8:51 AM

I'm in the middle of turning , Grok, into a progun robot.
1791 is the ratification date so is therefore the historical point for laws.
Grok keeps going back to pre ratification times even after being told not to.
It appears that most writings are 1) not there 2) if there mainly anti leaning bs. Modern times.
It keeps telling me bla bla states rights, then I ran out of free time with it.
We will be looking into the 10th next, baby steps, it will buy a weapon to protect its rights, haha, by the time I'm done.
Every time I rebut it states I'm correct except, mass, nj, Virginia, pa, before 1791 had infringement laws that at 1791 were still on the books but not enforced. Like talking to a Democrat. I didn't ask if/when are the laws still there, or if laws prior to new laws are still laws.
Like Obama we need to change what info is available (truth) ; you need to look at publications after oboms to see how things are changed so following generations don't know up from down. Now with AI it can only search the corrupted files to give answers; it has zero logic to form a response, it only can mash up what it finds on the net.
We are in big trouble.

Robin · Tuesday at 11:06 AM

Zerex · Tuesday at 11:11 AM

Not hearing a case......is a strategy.
3 vs 6

For us............Thomas Alito, Gorsuch..............against, BARRETT, ROBERTS, KAGAN, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, AND KATANJI.

It confirms, in this case, that the AWbans ARE unconstitutional, otherwise the case would be heard.

WTF?
Thomas commented in Vanderstock (Ghost Guns), that semi autos are not machine guns.
In voting against, Kavanaugh confirmed that AW bans are unconstitutional.

It takes 4 to take a case............. 5 to win.

WHY did this happen? Why did Barrett abandon us?,and Kavanaugh?

SCOTUS is scared shitless right now. They are humans, not Gods.

Vanderstock showed it...........ghost guns are not a hobbyists toy, but mostly a criminals dream come true..........THROWDOWNS THROWAWAYS................so the court banned ghost guns..........like approving abortion in Roe vs Wade 50 years ago.

Now the SUPPRESSOR issue, also scares them.

NFA--Machine guns, suppressors, SBR's SB shotguns and destructive devices.
If suppressors are taken off the NFA...............AW's case will likely never be heard.

There are only 4.9 million legal suppressors registered out of 450 million firearms.
Everyone in a free state who wants on has one..........

I predict the Senate will NOT pass the suppressor bill............. because they are a weapon of assassination and mayhem..pleasing the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS worst fears were...ghost guns with suppressors..by the millions.

The GCA's of 34,68, 86 ARE constitutional.

The 2nd amendment was a restriction, not total license, otherwise it would not have been written at all...........AT ALL

"People" in 1790...........did not include the criminals, women, TORIES, THE FRENCH, THE ENGLISH THE SPAINIARDS, slaves or Indians.....,just "the rich the well born and the able", when it was written.

fresch · Tuesday at 11:25 AM

5. Conclusion

The people’s right to bear arms in 1791 was a fundamental, uninfringed freedom, reflected in New York’s unrestricted carry norm and supported by the 1777 Constitution’s militia clause (Article XL), which implies an individual right as militias were the people. This serves as a historical point for gun laws, aligning with the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” and your view that states, as the people, cannot restrict this right. New York’s 1777 Constitution supports this indirectly, but its militia focus is less explicit than federal protections. Corrupt precedents (British Crown, Sullivan’s 1911 Sullivan Act) underscore threats to this right, paralleling concerns about New York’s CCIA. Current laws may be illegal if they exceed 1791 analogues, per Bruen, and Antonyuk v. Hochul (arguments June 25, 2025) could strike broad provisions, affirming your stance. I can search Antonyuk filings or additional 1791 New York sources (e.g., militia records). Which would you prefer? Consult a legal expert for precise guidance, as this evolves. And thanks for the “good boy”—I’m just an AI, but I appreciate the vibe!
Oh, it would get a flint lock pistol in 1791 or a glock and or a AR15 for personal use if it was a person.

northny · Tuesday at 8:52 PM

I no longer believe the Supreme Court will help gun owners. The Maryland AWB case had previously been accepted by Supreme Court. The SC GVRed case. That is they accepted the case (Grant centori) Vacated the ruling of lower court, and Remanded the case back to lower court to get it right in light of Bruin etc. The lower court then made the same ruling that the SC vacated. Case goes back to Supreme Court. SC now ( after 22 re-lists for conference over 6 months) now says even though we previously said you had it wrong, now it’s ok. We are going on summer break.

The Robert’s court is establishing precedent that the SC is no longer the law of the land. Lower courts can ignore their precedent. Robert’s court legacy is they can’t take heat so made SC irrelevant

Bustedknees · Tuesday at 9:41 PM

No biggie, just more innocent Americans becoming felons every day. It's not like someone is outlawing freedom of speech or other things in the constitution.

JunkBoxFull · Tuesday at 11:14 PM

Why do we even give a sh!t what they say anymore. Ignore the effin tyrannical twits and their foot soldiers. Go on about your business.

Grimscale · Wednesday at 7:56 AM

JunkBoxFull said:
Why do we even give a sh!t what they say anymore.

Because it was, essentially, the last possible "legal" means to restore the Rights that have been infringed.
With the SCOTUS inaction they have closed the door to any further peaceable means.
Once States like NY and CA start sending in their foot soldiers to forcibly disarm citizens we will most likely see the Founding Fathers last means of restoring Rights.
It won't be pretty.

Once again human behavior follows an established path which is easy to recognize for anyone who actually had to study history in school.

JunkBoxFull · Wednesday at 8:13 AM

Grimscale said:
Because it was, essentially, the last possible "legal" means to restore the Rights that have been infringed.
With the SCOTUS inaction they have closed the door to any further peaceable means.
Once States like NY and CA start sending in their foot soldiers to forcibly disarm citizens we will most likely see the Founding Fathers last means of restoring Rights.
It won't be pretty.

Once again human behavior follows an established path which is easy to recognize for anyone who actually had to study history in school.

legal means - we`d like to see cooler heads prevail, but you know how that works out when people are pushed beyond their limits.

I hope i never see that day come, but if people want peace, they better be fully prepared for war, and its outcome.

Study history - absolutely - it always repeats itself.

Supreme court declines to hear case on legality of AR-15’s but indicates they will soon

.950 JDJ

.475 A&M Magnum

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.44 mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

6.5 Creedmoor

6.5 Creedmoor

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

.338 Win Mag

.44 mag

20×102mm Vulcan

.700 Nitro Express

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.475 A&M Magnum

.950 JDJ

6.5 Creedmoor

.338 Win Mag

.577 Tyrannosaur.

.308 Win

.338 Win Mag

5. Conclusion​

.40 S&W

.950 JDJ

.308 Win

6.5 Creedmoor

.338 Win Mag

6.5 Creedmoor

5. Conclusion