Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
In a surprising turn of events, a left-leaning judge appointed by former President Obama has issued a dissent that effectively destroys AR bans forever, at least according to Braden from Langely Outdoors Academy (see video above).
This dissent in the Cargill case, delivered by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, may have major implications for gun control laws nationwide…
Table of contents
Sotomayor’s Dissent
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent confirmed that AR-15s are in common use, a significant point in the ongoing debate over gun control.
She wrote (emphasis added):
He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles. These simple devices harness a rifle’s recoil energy to slide the rifle back and forth and repeatedly “bump” the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, creating rapid fire.
This affirmation follows years of discussion about the commonality of certain firearms and their classification under various laws.
According to Sotomayor, AR-15s are widely used and owned, which places them outside the scope of restrictions typically applied to “dangerous and unusual weapons,” per the Heller decision.
Implications for Gun Control
This dissent could impact all AR bans previously brought before the courts. With Sotomayor’s statement, every case involving AR-15 bans will likely cite this decision.
This development is especially significant in light of previous rulings, such as the Heller and Bruen decisions, which laid the groundwork for this latest outcome.
Remember, because Heller stated, in essence, that bans on firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes are unconstitutional.
ARs officially fit that bill now, at least according to Sotomayor. Ergo, any state ban on them would have to be nixed!
Bump Stock Ban Overturned
The Cargill case also addressed the controversial bump stock ban, initially imposed by the Trump administration and upheld by the Biden administration.
The Supreme Court found that classifying bump stocks as machine guns was an overreach, stretching the statutory definition too far.
This aspect of the ruling focuses on the overreach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in interpreting congressional law.
Braden’s Final Reflections
Braden stated in the video:
When you look at what they’ve done, their push in the last five years around interpretation changes through the ATF and the executive bureaucracy at the behest of the White House, the executive branch, which is not charged with making laws—that’s Congress’s job—they overstepped their bounds. They overstepped the separation of powers through their ATF overreach. And now, because they are angry and they want to write a really fiery dissent and get on the record how angry they are, they just undermined AR bans and AR cases going forward. So now you’ve got a lovely little triumvirate of decision cases from the Heller decision, which laid the foundation, the Bruen decision, which built a nice little house on top of it, and the Cargill case, which put one of those rooster weather vanes on top to make it all the cute little farmhouse appeal. This is a really big deal, guys, particularly since other AR bans are up for consideration. You’re still waiting to hear the Chevron case, which is going to be a massive one, and also the Rahimi case. This is a big deal.
Conclusion
What do you think of Braden’s take? Did Sotomayor just make it harder for anti-gun politicians to ban modern sporting rifles?
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
It’s way past time that leftie liberals wake up and actually READ the oath of office that they swore to uphold! It covers ALL the oath of office NOT just the parts they agree with.
It’s a good point, and a nice try. But, the fact of the matter is that a dissenting opinion is not part of the binding law of the case. Nor does the fact that Justice Sotomayor wrote that in this case prevent her (or anyone else) from writing something different in the next case. Unless the question “Are AR-15s in ‘common use’?” is presented squarely and unequivocally in a case (and decided), the point remains open for dissent and (potentially) adverse decision. It’s a mistake to get all hyped up on the idea that this has resolved anything. That sort of view breeds the complacency that allows the election of anti-Second Amendment politicians and all the legislative mischief that results from that.
The bottom line is that we are the protectors of our own rights. Stay vigilant, and test every politician who wants your vote!
won’t make a difference! the surgeon general has already jumped on that.