Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’

[nortatoga]

Justice Kagan: AR-15s are Commonly Owned by 'Ordinary Consumers'

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in SCOTUS's decision striking down Mexico's lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as "both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers."

www.breitbart.com

Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’​

2,118

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
AWR Hawkins5 Jun 2025445
2:29
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Mexico’s lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in striking down Mexico’s lawsuit in a unanimous June 5, 2025, decision.
In the opinion, Kagan noted how Mexico tried to point to the way certain guns were marketed and designed in hopes of getting traction with their lawsuit. She explained why the court rejected this approach and while so doing, highlighted how popular and “widely” owned AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar rifles have become.
Kagan wrote for the Court:

Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. … The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.

As she approached the conclusion of the opinion, she noted, “So this suit remains subject to PLCAA’s general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico’s, it is founded on a third party’s criminal use of the company’s product.”

 

[thughes]

As she approached the conclusion of the opinion, she noted, “So this suit remains subject to PLCAA’s general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico’s, it is founded on a third party’s criminal use of the company’s product.”

So, fatass james proposed ban on Glocks is barred too? And any other lawsuit against gun manufacturers (Newtown, etc.) is now null and void? Didn't think so.....SCOTUS decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on (see: Bruen).

 

[FP1201]

Justice Kagan: AR-15s are Commonly Owned by 'Ordinary Consumers'

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in SCOTUS's decision striking down Mexico's lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as "both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers."

www.breitbart.com

Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’​

2,118

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
AWR Hawkins5 Jun 2025445
2:29
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Mexico’s lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in striking down Mexico’s lawsuit in a unanimous June 5, 2025, decision.
In the opinion, Kagan noted how Mexico tried to point to the way certain guns were marketed and designed in hopes of getting traction with their lawsuit. She explained why the court rejected this approach and while so doing, highlighted how popular and “widely” owned AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar rifles have become.
Kagan wrote for the Court:

As she approached the conclusion of the opinion, she noted, “So this suit remains subject to PLCAA’s general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico’s, it is founded on a third party’s criminal use of the company’s product.”

Obviously that was the intention of the Law (PLCAA) yet Manufacturers such as Glock, Remington, Ruger, S&W, et.al. have been and are continually sued by States and Shysters alike...
I find it disdainful the phrase "Words have Meaning" is largely ignored or bastardized in favor of twisted meanings...I don't know, I guess because I'm Black and White living in a Rainbow World.

 

[Defilade]

Obviously that was the intention of the Law (PLCAA) yet Manufacturers such as Glock, Remington, Ruger, S&W, et.al. have been and are continually sued by States and Shysters alike...
I find it disdainful the phrase "Words have Meaning" is largely ignored or bastardized in favor of twisted meanings...I don't know, I guess because I'm Black and White living in a Rainbow World.

I find it disdainful the phrase "Words have Meaning" is largely ignored or bastardized in favor of twisted meanings...I don't know, I guess because I'm Black and White living in a Rainbow World.

I find the phrase "Shall not be Infringed" pretty explanatory.

 

[Vicarious]

I'm actually kind of stunned, being that shes the 2nd dimmest member of Scotus behind Brown-Jackson

 

[FP1201]

I find the phrase "Shall not be Infringed" pretty explanatory.

No other Amendment has been or is more "infringed" yet the best we can do is about 50/50 in Court.

 

[Acer-m14]

but but but some Right can be restricted .. now who said that ...

 

[Modean]

There you have it. Common use established by a radical leftist.

 

[Robin]

The second amendment is Libertys' barometer. We are loosing.
Robin

 

[Vicarious]

The Right of the People only appears in 4 Amendments for a very good reason.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

Another day of rioting and a lot more will be bought by ordinary Americans

 

[Zerex]

Originally the BOR was only held to be a restriction against the Federal Government.

Thru the years, most amendments had been applied against the states, too.
Only after Heller and McDonald, were the entire BOR applied vs the states.

Heller, stated that you had the right to keep arms in the home, and McDonald extended that to outside the home. Bruen stated that shall issue is legal, if a NICS check is passed.

NICS checks are constitutional............shall not be infringed, only applies to non criminals today.

The GCA's of 34, 68,and mods since, are also Constitutional.
Congress can modify the GCA's and add or remove weapons from them.

The constitution is not a suicide pact with itself.

Legal restrictions, started after Teddy Roosevelt, such as the ban on Militias and anarchists.
The 1988 Militia Trial, was a humdinger.

States have been granted more authority to have their own laws, like the 49 state cars are not legal in California, and there are more like CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS......................WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Yes the states can restrict CC and do.

Shall not be infringed, is a modern myth today, as public safety is a factor; A new 2nd Amendment has narrowly been avoided, banning most guns, due to balance.