Posted: 9/4/2026 5:34:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: sbhaven][Edited]
Oral arguments set for December 2nd.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-238.html Sep 04 2026 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 2, 2026. VIDED. Some 30 briefs were filed today as of this post. |
|
Speaking of IMPORTANT Briefs submitted to SCOTUS. From the LIBERAL Sterling Professor of Law at Yale, Professor Akhil Amar. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422739/20260902064845976_260826a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf First: AR-15 platform weapons are facially proper weapons for lawful self-defense by presumptively law-abiding and nonthreatening adults, and as such fall within the core gun right, the paradigm case, as envisioned by the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1860s. Second: Roughly four-fifths of America’s states, encompassing roughly two-thirds of America’s current population, impose no serious impediments on AR-15s. Even if AR-15s in these states are used mainly for sporting purposes, the combined weight of these states provides a distinct basis, beyond selfdefense, for deeming AR-15 possession and use a fundamental right in modern America, under Glucksberg’s state-counting and outlier-focused approach to unenumerated rights. |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: Speaking of IMPORTANT Briefs submitted to SCOTUS. From the LIBERAL Sterling Professor of Law at Yale, Professor Akhil Amar. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422739/20260902064845976_260826a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf Originally Posted By Blaster3094: Speaking of IMPORTANT Briefs submitted to SCOTUS. From the LIBERAL Sterling Professor of Law at Yale, Professor Akhil Amar. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422739/20260902064845976_260826a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf He is a mixed bag. Here are a few bits from his opening summary that are troubling. An improved framework going forward would distinguish between citizens seeking to possess and use guns for legitimate self-protection and those seeking to possess and use guns for other lawful purposes, such as sport. This self-protection rights-claim does not, however, lie especially close to the core historical purposes that animated the architects of the Second Amendment in the 1780s and 1790s. True, this Court in Heller tried to root the self-protection right solely in the Second Amendment, while all but ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a mistake. More recent rulings by this Court have properly stressed the Fourteenth Amendment. Even so, these rulings have not gone far enough in centering analysis on this key Reconstruction Amendment. Finally, amicus urges this Court to reserve decision on whether laws that restrict large-capacity magazines (LCMs) as such, as distinct from AR-15 platform weapons that are merely capable of accepting magazines of various sizes, likewise violate the Constitution. LCMs are not ordinarily needed for self-defense by presumptively law-abiding adults. Thus, any strong judicial protection for LCMs would need to rest entirely on a Glucksberg-Griswold analysis. Such analysis should carefully credit the substantial number of states—thirteen at last count, including many high-population states, and all of them “blue” states—that currently seek to limit LCMs to protect the public from mass shootings. A proper Glucksberg-Griswold approach should also factor in the possibly significant number of additional states, many also likely to be “blue,” that might seek to join this magazine-restricting club in the near future, if left free to do so by this Court. Edit to add: Reading more into this guy's brief and it's bad. He appears to be setting up a new argument for the anti gunners. OK, AR-15 shouldn't be "banned"... BUT there should be a new two step review process. 1) is it "needed for ordinary self-defense as envisioned by the 1860s architects of the Fourteenth Amendment?" and 2) does it "nevertheless deserve protection under Corfield and Glucksberg?". He uses magazines as an example of why the state should be allowed to limit AR-15 platform weapons to a "moderate-size magazine, containing, say, 10 rounds." Basically it smells and sounds like he wants to include 1860's reconstruction era into the decision making process which would give the courts the ability to uphold certain state firearm bans or restrictions. This seems to be the new tactic forming the anti's are taking, using post reconstruction (and especially racist laws) and saying that the AR shouldn't outright banned but under a new revised two step process could still be restricted. He says this just before his conclusion. Soon, gun-rights advocates will be inviting this Court to prohibit LCM bans everywhere—bans that are popular in “blue” states above all. This Court should think twice before accepting this doubly dangerous invitation—dangerous both to the victims of gun violence and to the structural harmony of, to borrow yet again from Corfield, “the several states which compose this Union.” And then concludes with this: Amicus recommends that this Court reverse the judgment below and gently tweak its framework for resolving gun-related cases going forward. |
Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, talks about the Akhil Reed Amar brief. He feels this is huge and significant that that Amar comes out essentially seeking the same relief as we do on knocking out these laws. BREAKING NEWS! AMAZING ANNOUNCEMENT AT U.S. SUPREME COURT IN AR-15 FIGHT JUST RELEASED! |
|
If SCOTUS follows to form and releases major opinions at the end of the June 2027 term, like they did this year and in past years, it should put the Viramontes/Grant opinion past the end of the regular CT 2027 legislative session. If I understand the legislative session rules right the 2027 CT legislative session starts on January 6, 2027 and ends on June 9, 2027. It would not surprise me if the CT Democrat legislative leadership (or Lamont) reconvene the legislature for an emergency session to respond to what ever SCOTUS comes out with in the Viramontes/Grant opinion if the regular 2027 legislative session has ended. And of course there will be all the usual proposed gun control bills they'll come out with at the start of the regular legislative session. 
|
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: If SCOTUS follows to form and releases major opinions at the end of the June 2027 term, like they did this year and in past years, it should put the Viramontes/Grant opinion past the end of the regular CT 2027 legislative session. If I understand the legislative session rules right the 2027 CT legislative session starts on January 6, 2027 and ends on June 9, 2027. It would not surprise me if the CT Democrat legislative leadership (or Lamont) reconvene the legislature for an emergency session to respond to what ever SCOTUS comes out with in the Viramontes/Grant opinion if the regular 2027 legislative session has ended. And of course there will be all the usual proposed gun control bills they'll come out with at the start of the regular legislative session. I can almost guarantee that will happen. They will be foaming at the mouth with rage. |
|
Originally Posted By PGAEMU: I can almost guarantee that will happen. They will be foaming at the mouth with rage. Probably will. Either way its likely better than even odds that we'll see one or more proposed bills at the the start of the January 2027 legislative session aimed squarely at further restricting or segregating semiautomatic detachable magazine rifles. They're not stupid. They have to know that the CT AWB challenge being taken up by SCOTUS likely means they're going to rule you cannot ban AR-15's and other semiautomatic rifles. The various groups writing the anti gun legislation for the Democrat politicians will probably come up with other restrictions to try and accomplish what the AWB does if/when it is struck down by SCOTUS. |
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: If SCOTUS follows to form and releases major opinions at the end of the June 2027 term, like they did this year and in past years, it should put the Viramontes/Grant opinion past the end of the regular CT 2027 legislative session. If I understand the legislative session rules right the 2027 CT legislative session starts on January 6, 2027 and ends on June 9, 2027. It would not surprise me if the CT Democrat legislative leadership (or Lamont) reconvene the legislature for an emergency session to respond to what ever SCOTUS comes out with in the Viramontes/Grant opinion if the regular 2027 legislative session has ended. And of course there will be all the usual proposed gun control bills they'll come out with at the start of the regular legislative session. This all day long. Special sessions are easily called if they feel the need. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
| Relax and take the possibility of a huge win- all your doom predictions may come true but most likely not for some time and when they do it would because democrats have the judicial, the legislative and the executive under complete control- nationally and federally . For now, focus on the positive and pay off your cc so you can buy everything you can while you can! |
Top banana
|
William Kirk speaks with Chief of the DOJ's Second Amendment Section, Barry Arrington and covers a number of issues including Viramontes/Grant. Arrington thinks that SCOTUS will likely side with the pro 2A side, 6-3 in his estimation. He thinks the court will not GVR NAGR v Lamont or the Duncan, Gator Customs magazine cases but instead will Per Curium them based on what the Virmaontes/Grant opinion indicates (similar to what was done in Caetano slap down Per Curium). Arrington indicates that the Viramontes/Grant plaintiffs agreed to let the DoJ's Solicitor General to ask the court for time (10 minutes) to argue in support of the plaintiffs at the Dec. 2nd SCOTUS oral argument.  Text and History with Barry Arrington, Vol. III Video summary: This is the most exciting time in our Nation's history for the Second Amendment. While many have a hard time seeing that because they live Behind Enemy Lines, for the first time in American history the Department of Justice is actively suing to preserve and advance the Constitutional Rights of all citizens. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, is proud to announce to welcome back to the channel the Chief of the DOJ's Second Amendment Section, Barry Arrington. We will be not only discussing ongoing litigation spearheaded by this section, but also the legal, constitutional, historical and spiritual foundations in everyone of these rules of law. So let's learn from one of America's top 2A litigators and arm yourself with education today. Youttube AI summary: This video features William Kirk of Washington Gun Law welcoming Barry Arrington, the newly promoted Chief of the Department of Justice's Second Amendment Section, to discuss ongoing Second Amendment litigation and its underlying foundations. Key Discussion Points: • Department of Justice Involvement: Arrington emphasizes that for the first time in history, the DOJ is actively suing to protect Constitutional rights (5:00-5:30), with the Solicitor General's office set to present oral arguments in the Vermont v. Cook County case on December 2nd (3:30-4:30). Legal Precedents: The discussion highlights the significant impact of the Wolford v. Lopez ruling on current litigation, noting its role in rebuking state-level defiance of Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence (9:30-11:30). • The Common Use Test: Arrington details the historical and spiritual roots of the common use test, tracing it back to English common law, Blackstone, and the Founders' belief in natural rights (19:00-24:00). • Mootness and Licensing: The duo discusses legal challenges in the US Virgin Islands regarding mootness (25:00-28:00) and explores Bruen footnote 9 in the context of high licensing fees in San Jose, arguing that such costs can reach abusive levels (31:15-32:30). • Right to Acquire: They address the legal consensus that the Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to acquire firearms, citing cases like Rigby v. Jennings and Ortega (33:30-35:00). The conversation concludes by framing this period as the most critical time for the Second Amendment, with a focus on continuing to challenge restrictive, unconstitutional regulations nationwide. |