The Supreme Court has granted cert on Viramontes and Grant, which are related cases, even if they’re from different states. At the heart of things, they’re about whether so-called assault weapon bans violate the Constitution, and since there’s not a snowball’s chance in a Georgia August, there’s not a lot of reason to talk about that. Not when the future holds more interesting items for consideration.
See, the Supreme Court starts conferences today, and there are some interesting cases.
The Court’s next conference is scheduled for next Monday, September 28th, right before OT2026 formally begins. At that conference, the Justices presently plan to discuss 57 firearms-related cases:
- 39 of which challenge the federal felon-in-possession ban or a state equivalent on Second Amendment grounds,
- 3 regarding the constitutional protection of machine guns,
- 3 to the federal law banning possession by addicts and unlawful drug users (§ 922(g)(3)),
- 1 to the federal ban on possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States (§ 922(g)(5)),
- 1 to Washington state’s civil protection order statute,
- 1 to Maryland’s sensitive places restrictions,
- 1 to age restrictions (18-to-20-year-olds),
- 1 commerce clause challenge to 922(g)(1),
- 1 to shall issue licensing regimes
- 1 to interstate licensing reciprocity,
- 1 arguing for a self-defense exception to person-based prohibitors,
- 1 to ban on possession by domestic violence misdemeanants,
- 1 challenging the federal ban on short-barreled shotguns,
- 1 to military courts’ ability to impose firearms restrictions as part of court martial sentencing, and
- 1 to New York’s prohibition on tasers and stun guns.
Additionally, the Court started listing cases for discussion at the October 9th conference. At present, there are six firearms law-related cases set for discussion: four 922(g)(1) cases and two 922(g)(3) cases.
One of the most interesting is Shepherd v. United States, which is about whether short-barreled shotguns are considered “arms” under the Second Amendment. I think I know how that one will go, too, should the Court decide to hear it in due course, and anti-gunners won’t like that in the least.
I also don’t see the Court opting to uphold a prohibition on less-lethal self-defense methods.
Another interesting one is Salas-Martinez v. Texas. This is the case challenging age restrictions, particularly for the lawful carry of a handgun. Under federal law, even if the DOJ says it won’t enforce it, adults under 21 cannot purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer. They’re not, however, prohibited from owning such a firearm.
Because of that, the question about carrying becomes a thing.
This is a challenge that will have lasting ramifications across the nation if the Court agrees to hear it.
Even with all of this, though, there aren’t any that shouldn’t be heard, in my opinion. The problem is that the Supreme Court isn’t going to just busy itself with gun cases, no matter how much we need them to rule on them, preferably with an airtight decision that leaves no wiggle room for lower courts to pretend the justices said something else entirely.
Let’s hope they end up taking the bigger cases and those that seem narrow but offer a chance at a broader ruling. Let’s get things back on the correct track, mmmmkay?
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
