The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition

It is difficult to be sanguine about the current Supreme Court's chaotic approach to the clear and unambiguous 2nd Amendment. Aside from the two stalwarts -- Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, the court whipsaws back and forth with competing rulings.

The decade began well, with a solid ruling in the Bruen case, slapping down New York's onerous and blatantly unconstitutional carry licensing scheme. That sent ripples throughout the country's blue, anti-gun states, forcing them to shift from the nonsensical "may issue" to a more sane "shall issue." But the fascists in the blue states promptly attacked the ruling with a series of onerous modifications to their gun laws, including vast areas of their states that were newly restricted to concealed carry, and doubling down on magazine restrictions and "assault weapon" bans.

And the cowardly worms on the Supreme Court sank to the occasion and declined to address these clear violations of our God-given natural rights to self defense and resistance to malign government.

Supreme Court Declines to Challenge Maryland 'Assault Weapons' Ban: The Supreme Court also rejected a challenge to Rhode Island's magazine ban, leaving both laws intact for now, with three justices dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear two high-profile challenges to state gun-control laws—one in Maryland banning semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15, and another in Rhode Island prohibiting magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Both denials came in a June 2 orders list that did not provide an explanation for the denials. However, three justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—dissented, indicating that they would have taken up the cases.

In the Maryland case, sometimes referred to as an “assault weapons” ban, Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the majority in its decision to deny review, but said the Supreme Court “should and presumably will” address the constitutionality of AR-15 bans within the next term or two.

Well! I am relieved that my 2nd Amendment rights are defended by such capable people!

There is no rational reason why the court can't strike down these various unconstitutional state laws by simply referring to their own previous holding in Bruen. Only a deeply dedicated anti-gun zealot could claim that AR-15s aren't in common use, since it is the most popular rifle in America. Only a deeply dedicated anti-gun zealot could claim that 30 round magazines aren't in common use. Hell, that's what the AR-15 was designed for! And most of all, only a deeply dedicated anti-gun zealot could carefully ignore the clear link between the 2nd Amendment's protections and military weapons. Militias aren't groups of hunters on leisurely walks through the forest on deer hunts. The security of a free state is not dependent on access to shotguns for upland birds.

The 2nd Amendment protects our right to arm ourselves with the military weapons of the day. Muskets and single-shot rifles in 1791, and the closest the horrid National Firearms Act of 1934 allows us today... the ubiquitous AR-15.

In a country that respects its founding documents, that would be an M-4 (full-auto), but the idea that we must be restricted to 10 round magazines and something other than the AR-15 is simply not backed up by any intelligent reading of the Constitution.

So...do we have six deeply dedicated anti-gun zealots on the United States Supreme Court? The evidence suggests that we do.

[Crossposted at CutJibNewsletter and X/Twitter] And the Apple and Spotify feeds for CJN's podcast should be working!

posted by CBD at 10:48 AM

| Access Comments