• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    The AR-15 as well as magazines with more than 10 rounds are both in common use for lawful purposes, making any such blanket ban on either unconstitutional as per Heller.

    That said, the Supreme court declines cases on the regular, which is not a judgement either for or against prior rulings. Though it does mean the prior ruling stands for now.

    • uuldika@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      it’s wild to me that the Court struck down the ban on bump stocks in Cargill, which are obviously unusual devices without a history of use for self-defense (and strained to misinterpret the “by a single function of the trigger” language of the NFA) yet they decline to overturn this decision.

      where’s the internal consistency? you’d think they’d at least follow precedent they themselves set.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sometimes it’s just to let the various lower courts litigate every angle first, and other times it’s because they are waiting for a more perfect case. It’s very easy to make bad case law as SCOTUS, so they decline to hear even obvious cases on the regular.

        • uuldika@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          read up a bit. there’s an interesting concurrence(!) from Kavanaugh, which basically said they’re too busy, come back later.

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is correct. There are several state appeals court cases working through their respective processes. I hope they result in a case that gets all state rifle bans and magazine restrictions invalidated forever, but as usual it takes mere minutes for restrictions to be put in, and decades for them to be judicially removed.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Traditionally (as in the decades after the 2nd was written) all concealed carrying of weapons was illegal. It was also not uncommon for law enforcement to disarm people when they entered town. Heller is a terrible ruling because it claims to hold to history while ignoring historical norms that are inconvenient for the pro-gun lobby.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It was common during those times to open carry however. It’s just that concealed carry is much, much more common now. Quite a bit of that has to do with people’s attitudes toward arms. It’s much easier to not upset people if they don’t know you are carrying.

        And I can tell you from personal experience, even if you are printing, vanishingly few people notice. When I quit my last job, told my manager I had carried every day for the last years. He had never noticed.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh yeah, I know. I know it’s not a common take, but I am pro open carry, but anti concealed carry. I feel safer when I know who is and isn’t armed.