The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We're Really Busy Now, Come Back In A Year Or Two
"Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two."
On December 1, 2020, the Maryland ban on AR-15s was challenged. The plaintiffs lost in the District Court and before the Fourth Circuit. In August 2024, a cert petition was filed in Snope v. Brown. The petition sat in purgatory for nearly a year with fourteen relists.
Today, the Supreme Court finally put the petition out of its misery and denied cert. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted. Justice Barrett, as usual said nothing. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a very unusual statement respecting the denial of the petition. The first two paragraphs explain why the Maryland decision was "questionable." If you read these parts, you would expect a grant. Indeed, Kavanaugh as circuit judge had found that the District of Columbia's ban on AR-15s was unconstitutional. But then, we get to the last paragraph:
In short, under this Court's precedents, the Fourth Circuit's decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals. See Capen v. Campbell, 134 F. 4th 660 (CA1 2025); see also, e.g., National Assn. for Gun Rights v. Lamont, 685 F. Supp. 3d 63 (Conn. 2023), appeal pending, No. 23–1162 (CA2); Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, 742 F. Supp. 3d 421 (NJ 2024), appeal pending, No. 24–2415 (CA3); Viramontes v. County of Cook, No. 1:21–cv–4595 (NDIll., Mar. 1, 2024), appeal pending, No. 24–1437 (CA7); Miller v. Bonta, 699 F. Supp. 3d 956 (SD Cal. 2023), appeal pending, No. 23–2979 (CA9). Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.
My mouth nearly hit the floor when I read this. Kavanaugh all-but signals that he will be a fourth vote to grant cert. He does not identify any vehicle problems, or reasons why the Maryland petition should not be granted. Does he really think that rulings from the Ninth Circuit will help much in the deliberations? These courts will all rule against the Second Amendment. Nothing is in doubt. The upshot is that the Court is really busy with other stuff right now, and you all should just come back later. The Second Amendment could take a sabbatical for a year or two until the docket lightens up. Indeed, this case has been pending for nearly four years. Maryland gun owners will just have to chill.
Of late I've been praiseworthy of some of Kavanaugh's actions, but this is the sort of Kavanaugh opinion that infuriates me. And where is Justice Barrett on these issues? A decade ago in 2015, Justice Scalia dissented from denial of cert in Friedman v. Highland Park, a challenge to an assault weapon ban. This issue isn't new. I think this term will be remembered as the term in which Justice Barrett's slide became indisputable. I started tracking it years ago, but it is hard to ignore now.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
" . . . a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review."
Last I heard, a denial leaves the lower court ruling in place. To everyone in the world except Kavanaugh, that means he agrees with the lower court.
Bingo. "I think this is wrong but just suffer!"
Well, not to any informed people. But lots of people are ignorant; that's why Kavanaugh explained to those people that it doesn't in fact mean that.
He didn't explain squat. He asserted. He said. He did not explain.
What would an explanation look like beyond this recitation of the fact that inaction is not endorsement?
You lawyers like citations.
You yourself often complain about assertions without evidence.
You should be able to figure it out.
US v. CARVER , 260 U.S. 482 (1923).
But I don't get your push here...do you think the Supreme Court Justice was lying?
Gosh, bud, maybe I already said what my thoughts were?
It's not sufficiently wrong, or large enough effect, to make the list of things they will discuss this year.
This is not irrational.
What is larger, in your mind, than a specific Constitutional statement?
As best I can tell from a quick search of internet gun shops, there are plenty of "Maryland-compliant" black rifles for sale from reputable brands.
I have not followed the MD law closely, but it appears the "AR-15 ban" is toothless. YMMV.
In which case, it's not a constitutional crisis. Much like an insurance mandate with no penalty.
I'm also of the minority opinion that the second amendment isn't about self defense, and does not apply to the states. Trying to cram that square peg into this round hole seems like typical lawyer sophistry to me.
Well, if I drive thru Maryland with my AR I don't know whether I'm violating the law or not
That seems like an infringement on the individual right to keep and carry arms
Your minority opinion doesn't change the reality for me
I guess recent Conspiracy blog entries have reminded someone another justice is a problem too.
Another opportunity to say that outcome based judging remains illegitimate, whether it is expected on the left or right. Whether an opinion infuriates you or not.
Utterly ridiculous. Courts wake up a midnight to protect illegal aliens from being deported but citizens have to wait years for their rights to be protected.
What a failure by the courts, and this will lead to more changes by the right.
Allowing something to percolate in the circuits is standard issue.
He cites a bunch of cases in the pipeline. It makes sense to allow them to be decided.
Conservatives used to talk about how the Second Amendment was a disfavored right. But even after several great decisions that make its importance clear, they’re still unhappy when they don’t win every Second Amendment case immediately. Just because courts shouldn’t disfavor it doesn’t mean they should also favor it more highly than anything else all the time. Huge whiners. The public often waits for years for half-way decent Fourth Amendment decisions that protect our liberty and you don’t see defense attorneys whining as much as the gun rights activists.
The Fourth amendment is not attacked by academic, media, and entertainment elites to the same extent as the Second Amendment.
Well it IS attacked by judges, prosecutors, legislators, and police. Which is rather more important, wouldn’t you say?
WTF are you talking about? There's a big difference between "win every case immediately" and "lose almost every case and have it drag on for years because the lower courts find a reason to justify the most ridiculous laws as somehow consistent with the SCOTUS decisions, irrespective of what those decisions actually said."
There's no way this treatment would be tolerated with respect to any other right.
“There's no way this treatment would be tolerated with respect to any other right.”
It definitely is with the Fourth Amendment. Cops get away with a lot because lower courts don’t take the already police-friendly Supreme Court cases seriously and SCOTUS never corrects them or provides better guidance. By contrast the second amendment has a VERY favorable test and the court is very interested in protecting it. Defense lawyers win second amendment challenges to various firearm statutes post-Bruen. They lose search and seizure cases where there is obvious police misconduct.
And as Prof. Kerr has repeatedly pointed out, even on the rare occasions when it does that generally doesn't help the defendant because the so-called good faith exception means it doesn't benefit him.
"Allowing something to percolate in the circuits is standard issue."
Allowing rights violations to fester in the circuits is a standard abuse.
I don't care WHAT right it is, vindicating explicit constitutional rights should be a priority job for the Court, and at the latest, once there's a circuit split every even theoretical excuse for dodging doing their work has evaporated.
We have a system because no one person is Arbiter of the Law.
Humility is a virtue; a judge making a decision you disagree with is not abuse.
And the system includes the stinking Supreme court actually taking cases, instead of letting circuit splits fester.
Very different take from your post 2 hours ago about rights violations and the Court vindicating them.
But hey, it doesn't rely on your personal feelings so that's good.
And sure, the Court should prioritize circuit splits. And they do. A blanket demand of 100% immediate cert grants to everyone seems reductive to me.
Also, from below: "Waiting out Courts of Appeals before granting cert on an issue that is pending in several circuits is a long-established practice." That sounds deliberative, not some abuse.
I mean, I am also not thrilled with the Court's shrinking docket either; I'm just not going to call it abuse.
Indeed, and this was actually the exact argument that the Trump administration was advancing as to why the Court shouldn't make a merits ruling in the Birthright Citizenship case.
Prof. Blackman doesn't remember that time when Justice Kavanaugh gave Biden a temporary reprieve from evictions despite finding it unconstitutional.
Yeah, he gave him two weeks. Not years.
Wasn't it something like a month, and even then it took over that just to get the case back to SCOTUS?
Again, not years or decades. Heller was decided 17 years ago. Not much has changed in the anti-gun states.
I'm referring to the eviction case, not 2A cases. We all know full well what today's denial means.
My point is that Kavanaugh has played this game before.
Waiting out Courts of Appeals before granting cert on an issue that is pending in several circuits is a long-established practice. It is designed to obtain the benefit of multiple circuit court opinions, which is generally useful, particularly for a court that takes only a small fraction of the cert petitions it gets. Contra Blackman, this approach does not mean the judges who choose to wait are less reliably conservative than the judges who want to take the case sooner. Indeed, if some justices think the 4th Circuit opinion may be an outlier, waiting on other circuits to decide their cases can help legitimize and strengthen the eventual overruling of the 4th Circuit's position. So Kavanaugh and Barrett may simply be playing the long game here.
I agree with Blackman, though, that it seems unwise for justices to critique a lower court ruling in the course of denying cert, which is what Kavanaugh's opinion does. There's a "hot take" quality to this opinion - "well, this hasn't been briefed or argued, and most of my colleagues are staying silent on this until it is properly before us, but the world needs to hear what I think anyway . . ." Not sure that's the best way to provide guidance to the lower courts.
I wonder when the firearms fetishists will assert defenses under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment and/or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They could assert that their popguns are venerated objects that they must carry at all times in order to worship them multiple times per day.
You mean like these folks?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/01/589808670/ar-15s-are-biblical-rod-of-iron-at-pennsylvania-church
You seem to have a problem with guns.
“featured gun-toting worshippers, some wearing crowns of bullets as they participated in communion”
I see no problems here. I wonder if this congregation— if still active— has a viable RFRA claim.
"I wonder if this congregation— if still active— has a viable RFRA claim."
A claim as to what? The linked article doesn't refer to any criminal prosecution or governmental action restricting their gun worship.
Should have typed “would have.”
They certainly seem to have the firearm veneration covered.
Will Blackman now call for Kavanaugh to resign?
Kavanaugh is not the issue. Roberts is the issue. Kavanaugh would vote for cert if he thought there was 5th vote on the merits. Barrett ultimately sided with the majority in Bruen.
Since 2015, Roberts is the common denominator: he has been on the court for a long time and simply does not want to hear gun cases.
Obviously, both of them are the issue, as 5-4 would win, even with Roberts dissenting.
I think this is the correct diagnosis. Amy is not a sure 5th vote. So why grant cert there's a good chance of losing the actual case ? But in the meantime, signal furiously that you care.
I'd rather they grant cert and let the chips fall as they may.
Yeah, I'd rather roll the dice, too: The longer this goes on, the more the rebellion against Bruen gathers steam. Better to know now how much of the 2nd amendment the Court is actually willing to uphold, then we can regroup and work to push things further.
Yes. Regardless of what Kavanagh stresses, the lower courts are going to interpret this as a green light to continue what they're doing.
Maybe Kavanaugh figures Amy is not a gal who likes to be rushed. Force her to decide now while she’s uncomfortable maybe you lose her vote. But allow a bit more insubordination from the inferior courts for a couple of years, maybe she’ll get herself comfortable to vote the right way.
The issue is that there is no 2nd amendment protection against State regulation of State militias.
There is a 2nd amendment protection from FEDERAL meddling in state militias.
There is a 14th amendment right to the privileges of citizenship, and those include self defense. It does not automatically follow that states must allow all available tools for self defense.
This is especially true when the ban is dumb and ineffective.
Sorry, but the "Second Amendment is not incorporated" ship has sailed. I don't love the modern incorporation doctrine, but there's no principled way to say that the 2nd Amendment protections are not incorporated, while those of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th are. especially when the 1st specifically says "Congress."
As a matter of text, the 2nd Amendment does not require incorporation against the states - it’s a general prohibition addressed to whom it may concern - “shall not be infringed.”
Whereas 1A is explicitly addressed to Congress.
Yes, William Rawle pointed that out at the time "the 2A could be appealed to as a a restraint against both the Congress and the states"
There's nothing to incorporate about the second amendment.
It was written to prevent the Federal government from disarming the state militias. Because that was the lesson taught by the British.
The others were about individual rights more generally.
And it does not follow that individuals have a right to violent uprising against the state. The Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War demonstrated this.
Individuals have a right to self defense. This need not include all weapons of war. As codified in the NFA.
Pretty amazing that this idea is still argued
Flight Log Roberts has his wing-wench in Comey-Barrett. So they didn’t have a fifth vote to hear it.
Interesting how Rahimi didn't need to percolate through a few more circuits before they granted cert on that one.
The issue here is clearly presented. It is disingenuous to claim that more rulings from lower courts---rulings we can predict by which court they are in---will be of any guidance in helping the Court finally tell us what they really meant in Heller and Bruen. Or better stated--what Roberts really meant.
It would seem that Kavanaugh is not really sure what "shall not be infringed" means, and needs more help with his English homework.
"Interesting how Rahimi didn't need to percolate through a few more circuits before they granted cert on that one."
I don't think that is interesting. I can't think of any case where a U. S. Court of Appeals declared a federal statute to be unconstitutional where SCOTUS did not grant cert.
Well, yes, as a general rule the Court is insanely deferential to the federal government, and mostly just enforces the Constitution against the states.
In fact, they'd probably have refused the Heller case if it hadn't been DC, which made the law that had been overturned a sort of federal law.
Probably!
Yeah, probably, because it was the first 2nd amendment case they'd taken in 68 stinking years. Why'd they break the streak?
Because Heller had won at the district court level, and it was the district they work in, DC, would be my guess. If I've got your permission to make guesses, anyway.
The Maryland "ban" is one in name only. For example, the IWI Zion and Ruger AR-15s are perfectly legal. So is the CZ Bren and HK MR556. There are tons of other models available, some of which I own, and if you know the "quirks" you can easily build one as well.
I personally don't think the MD ban was clearly presented in Snopes because MD is not a clean ban and would have forced the court down a rabbit hole of feature tests. The AR-15 is banned in Maryland, but only those that match a particular spec (heavy barrel models are legal, so are piston ARs, and a heavy barrel is whatever the maker deems a heavy barrel... so the Ruger and IWI models are legal because they have lawyers who understand the law).
I know: infringement is infringement. But the truth is, the MD laws are more of an annoyance than actual hindrance.
"and would have forced the court down a rabbit hole of feature tests."
Only if they weren't going to apply their own test from Bruen. Otherwise the only relevant feature would have been, "Is it a gun?". Because there's simply no "historical tradition" of such laws.
The Court, however, would force itself down that rabbit hole, because they could never accept the implications of that.
Correctamundo.
Yes. That would force them to overturn the NFA, and they're not willing to let anyone other than government goons have full-auto rifles.
Since Heller, the theory that the government can ban NFA weapons is seriously under developed and questionable in its foundation. It was also complete dicta as Mr. Heller did not request the right to own an NFA weapon.
I can sort of see the argument that they want a favorable Circuit opinion to grant cert to and uphold. But there's a good chance there won't be one. Too many Obama and Biden appointees on the courts.
This is also a previously-GVR'd case where Judge Thacker delayed the release of an opinion to prevent anything pro-gun from possibly percolating up. Another GVR would have been a kick in the balls, but simply denying cert says something far deeper than Kavanaugh's 'I can't dissent because then we'd have to do something' does.
They're not doing anything in a term or two. Thomas or Alito will retire or otherwise leave the bench, and the squishes will suddenly find that the Second Amendment doesn't mean any thing. It's over.
As far as almost every member of the Court is concerned, the 2nd amendment is a second class amendment. They'll take 2nd amendment cases only if they can't avoid taking them, and they'll only uphold it in instances where the results don't make them nervous.
They just don't find violations of it all that offensive. It's just no big deal if they happen, or are prolonged by letting the cases fester at the circuit court level until taking one becomes unavoidable.
Of course, for 3 members of the Court, it's not even a second class right, and violations are actually viewed as a positive good. Or maybe it's 4 at this point. We won't know until they deign to take another 2nd amendment case.
Is this the sort of thing a "petition for redress of grievances" might have any effect on? Remind them that a rather large percentage of the population don't share their casual attitude?
No. No it’s not. If the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, or 14th were treated like the 2nd, criminal defense attorneys would be in heaven. But they’re in a hell where this court and courts generally routinely ignore them all the time.
What are you talking about? You could teach a course, a series, on any of those amendments, especially the 14th. They have been rigorously reviewed countless times by the Court in an endless variety of factual scenarios.
What do we know about the 2A? You can carry a handgun in public with restrictions (some places who knows) and at home with restrictions (who knows what). Other than that, the Court has deliberately kept us in the dark about the scope of the right and who may exercise it. In addition, it has allowed open defiance of the very existence of the right to percolate in lower courts.
When was the last time a court showed an open hostility to the idea of, say, free speech? Sure, it might have ruled that X did not qualify as free speech but no court ever held that it wasn't really a right to begin with.
Your assertion is astounding to say the least.
Try doing a criminal case sometime. There is an open hostility to the rights of criminal defendants.
And post-Bruen, we DO know the scope of the right. It’s extensively protected. No other right is evaluated with such extensive deference like that.
It’s not astounding. It’s reality.
"And post-Bruen, we DO know the scope of the right. It’s extensively protected. No other right is evaluated with such extensive deference like that."
Riiight. That's why I had to undergo a criminal background check the last time I bought a new printer for my home office. And it's a real pain dealing with the legally mandated limits on the size of paper magazines and ink reservoirs, too.
Just because the right isn’t unlimited to your satisfaction doesn’t mean it’s not heavily favored post-Bruen compared to other rights. Courts will actually look at what you suggest. But god forbid you suggest that it’s unreasonable for police to use “training and experience” to justify any search.
"No other right is evaluated with such extensive deference like that."
Bullshit! This claim was objectively false. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, laws infringing on either are presumptively unconstitutional with very narrow exceptions. That's why everybody tries to shoehorn other rights claims into the 1st amendment: It gets 1st class treatment.
You would NEVER be able to get a license to buy a printer, or to publish, past the judiciary, and never mind if it was "shall issue"; "Rights" are what you specifically do NOT need to go crawling to the government for permission to do, and "licenses" are just exactly that permission you get after suitably groveling.
Sure, if the Court were ACTUALLY applying the standard they enunciated in Bruen, you might be right. Even the Court isn't actually applying Bruen, and several of the circuits are all but ignoring it.
As demonstrated here, with the majority's tacit blessing.
Yeah. This is just Brett-Law, not real law. What you wish it was versus what’s reality. Post Bruen it’s a very favorable test compared to other rights. You’re just mad because you can’t do whatever you want whenever you want with respect to firearms. Which isn’t how the law works. Or will work.
How can you call having to get a license and undergo a federal background check to exercise a right "very favorable"? Having your exercises tracked by the government? Do we have a federal agency that regulates interstate commerce in crucifixes? Am I guilty of a federal felony if I sell somebody one without a special license, or without entering it into a log book the government can inspect?
Everything firearms related is regulated to an insane degree for something that implicates a "right". A half inch too short a rifle or shotgun will put you in the slammer. I have to pay an outrageous tax just to put a muffler on my gun, and God forbid I just cobble one together without getting government permission.
Yes, if the Court had actually MEANT Bruen, rather than just Thomas meaning it, they'd be striking these sorts of laws down like tenpins. They didn't mean it. As the OP relates, they don't much care if the circuits conspicuously violate their own ruling.
So, yes, Bruen in theory elevated the 2nd amendment to the same status as the 1st. In THEORY.
In practice, it's still a second class right, if not third.
Okay. So I actually practice law and you don’t. And I’m telling, you’d absolutely rather have a case challenging something under the second amendment than pretty much any other constitutional issue right now.
Yeah, well obviously that's because anything similar having to do with the 1st amendment would never reach you in the first place, because the precedents upholding the 1st amendment are so stark that they don't even TRY to violate them to this extent.
So, Mr. Actually Practices Law, what's your prediction for what the judiciary would do if a state instituted a shall issue license to own and use printing presses?
You keep talking about the first and keep ignoring what I say about other constitutional protections. At any rate just because no court will ever say anyone can have any weapon at anytime in any place in the same way as speech, doesn’t mean the right isn’t highly favored now. Again: you not getting EXACTLY EVERYTHING you want is not anywhere close to the same thing as the right not being highly protected now.
"So, Mr. Actually Practices Law, what's your prediction for what the judiciary would do if a state instituted a shall issue license to own and use printing presses?"
You keep talking about the first and keep ignoring other constitutional protections
Because my thesis isn't that the 2nd amendment is the ONLY right the Court shits on. It's that the Court shits on it.
Haven't I said that the reason everybody tries to shoehorn their rights claims into the 1st amendment is that the 1st amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that the Court actually strictly enforces?
That's hardly a claim that the 2nd amendment is the only right the Court treats badly.
The difference is that the 4th amendment has been shit on long enough that there are established expectations, and the Court is fairly clear about the degree to which they actually WILL uphold it. The Court has come right out and told us when they won't uphold the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions. It ticks people off, but it's not like the Court's taking abuses are vague.
While the 2nd amendment got the cold shoulder from the Court for generations. Then the dam breaks, the Court announces with Heller that they're actually going to uphold it. And in Bruen sets out rules for upholding it that matched the way the 1st amendment gets treated.
And then we find out they didn't mean it. So, of course we're pissed off at this bait and switch. It's not just that they're treating the 2nd amendment badly, it's that they told us they wouldn't, and then did anyway.
And here's lawtalkingguy who wants to pretend that it's perfectly ordinary to have to have to undergo a background check and get a license from the government to exercise a constitutional right. And I ask him a straightforward question he doesn't want to answer:
So, Mr. Actually Practices Law, what's your prediction for what the judiciary would do if a state instituted a shall issue license to own and use printing presses?
Can you think of any other explicit constitutional right you need a license to exercise?
From my perspective, if someone wants a disfavored right, they might want to try the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Kennedy provided a fifth vote for some cases, but these days hard to find a win, especially in a non-capital case.
That's because that one was aimed at the judiciary getting inventive, and when was the last time you heard of a judge departing from the sentencing standards in the direction of red hot pokers?
Lol this whole thing again. Will you ever admit that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about?
Heavily favored my ass. After Bruen left in place the sensitive place exception, New York basically decided every place other than the sidewalk was a sensitive place.
You're either disingenuous or retarded. There is no third possibility.
No it’s stupid to pretend that you not getting your way all the time is the same thing as being “disfavored.” It’s a childish mentality. “BUT MOM I WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS TO THE DENTIST!!!!!” Is what you people sound like to me.
The restrictions on carry at medical offices is the least of the problem. What about parks public, transportation, or restaurants? Those are the most egregious. In any case, you're proving the point made by another commenter here. It's not a first class right if it can be irrationally infringed upon with no evidence and really even no justification.
“It's not a first class right if it can be irrationally infringed upon with no evidence and really even no justification.”
Buddy. Wait til I tell you about other rights lol.
Yeah, tell us about how the 1st amendment gets the same treatment. I'm still waiting.
I never said that the 2nd amendment was the only 2nd class right. Rather, that in Bruen they told us that it wouldn't be one, and they lied.
I think EVERY stinking word of the Constitution should be enforced right to the hilt. The Court thinks the Bill of Rights is an ala carte menu.
And I'll ask it again: How would the Court react if a state tried to institute a shall issue licensing system for printing presses? Think they'd let the issue percolate a while, wait for a fully briefed circuit split?
Your theory of rights is just more BrettLaw.
There's a great discussion of by a prof who wrote a book arguing that due to political pressure, criminal procedures got a lot more permissive than originally intended:
https://dividedargument.com/episodes/gorsuch-genie
Maryland does not have an AR ban. You can walk into any MD gun store and buy an AR today. MD has a toothless ban on buying or selling mags greater than 10 rounds, and their 29 inch minimum over all length for SBR sucks. Even suppressors are unregulated by MD.
I'm confused by this, because the MD law bans AR-15s (and copies) by name.
Yet I can find rifles on sale that are the AR-15 pattern, and merely complete with the OAL, folding stock and magazine requirements.
What's up with that?
It is confusing. MD allows AR-15s as long as they have the H-Bar barrel, which is a massive loophole. So all the ARs sold in MD just have a lightly heavier barrel. Also AR pistols are treated as pistols and also legal, and have no H-Bar requirement.
Assault weapon and SBR laws in the US make zero sense. For example, a vertical forward grip makes an AR pistol into a SBR, but an angled one does not.
The magazine limit is equally as dumb. I can't buy a mag with greater then 10 round capacity in MD, but I can get any size mag I want in a different state and bring it to MD no problem.
...and you wonder why we think Democrats are idiots.
This is not a D vs R thing. Both sides have had ample opportunity to change the regulations in the NFA or repeal the NFA. Trump can do that now. Most of the problems come from the regulations written to support the NFA.
Being arbitrary is the point: They want to establish that they can enact any gun law they want, and, no, it doesn't have to be sensible.
Next you should trot out the quote from Rand as if it were insightful rather than loony.
It was sensible. You just don't like taking off the rose colored glasses.
The point was to be arbitrary, rather than follow a consistent rule, because people can anticipate and adapt to consistent rules, while they can't anticipate and adapt to arbitrary, so they can't arrange their affairs such that you have to leave them alone in the future.
That's why people who DON'T want to risk having to leave you alone act arbitrarily.
If you ban guns by some clearly defined functional characteristic, manufacturers can work around it. Like selling bump stocks and hellfire triggers because you provided an objective definition of machine gun.
But if you ban them on an arbitrary basis, they know that if they try to work around you, you'll just arbitrarily sweep you up anyway. And you'll be motivated to go find something else to do.
people can anticipate and adapt to consistent rules, while they can't anticipate and adapt to arbitrary
Yet again you just say something and haven't thought it through, thus proving too much.
By this logic, it's a sucker's game to write down any laws at all.
Here are two things I don't understand. First, why does Josh think his feelings and emotions towards particular Supreme Court justices are interesting to anyone other than himself (including, I fancy, his own wife). I guarantee that Justice Kavanaugh doesn't care. Second, why does Prof. Volokh think that Josh Blackman's feelings are interesting to his readers?
His opinions are apparently interesting enough to get you to read them.
You got me. It's true, I like to jeer at MAGA puerility and inanity.
Josh has really jumped the shark in recent months.
I just don't understand the Blackman haters who constantly take the time to read and then comment, not by engaging the substance of his post but on how annoyed they are by Blackman. Here's a suggestion. Just ignore his posts, that's what I usually do with the Somin posts. It saves me a lot of aggravation. It makes for a more pleasant day.
It baffles me too. Virtue signalling is all I can think of.
Blackman has his faults and writes about topics I don't care about, but one thing he always does is educate, even indirectly, about courts, how the legal kitchen actually works, how petty lawyers and judges can be. That old saying about never looking in a restaurant's kitchen if you like the food? Blackman shows that kitchen in almost all his posts.
But I don't think that's their problem. They're too petty and vindictive and devoid of content. I can only guess that they think the cool kids look down on him being a professor at such a despicable college, and they are virtue signalling.
The problem is that he's teaching that 2+2 = purple, and that spaghetti is the capital of Denmark.
And yet he's called a lot of major cases correctly. Maybe he actually has a good beat on the arguments that the current Court is likely to accept. Methinks you're just upset that your favored manner of jurisprudence is damned near dead. May the next 90 years of originalism be as impactful as the prior 90 years of living constitutionalism.
A. You're a liar.
B. Liars like you are not the subject. It's the idiots who just say Josh is an idiot from a third-rate school and should stop posting because they are tired of being forced to read his crap.
Yes, people liking to dunk on chumps is a psychological mystery.
Also though, I see basically 1 comment here that fits your complaint that was posted before your comment - LoganMankins.
People thinking somebody as successful as Blackman is a chump is a bit of a psychological mystery, anyway. For all that I'll make fun of his haircut, he's a successful and moderately prominent legal scholar.
In the way that the .175 hitting utility infielder is still one of the most prominent and successful baseball players in the world, I guess so.
So what's that make you, the one who was rejected for bat boy?
Well, they are.
Plenty of chumps get on TV or get published or whatever.
His analysis on the VC is a mess, and people like to dunk on him for it.
The fact that he's the main MAGA voice here as well does help.
So, basically your position is, "I can call Blackman a chump because 99.995% of the population are chumps, and he isn't in the 0.005%"
Whatever, chump.
Where did I say anything like that?
His posts are notably, extraordinarily foolish.
If he were just a commenter his getting stuff wrong and getting mad about it, his in inconsistency, his lazy long-form speculation, his misuse of the word courage, his constant one-sided grudges, and his desperate need for validation would get him the usual rasher of mockery.
But he's not just a commenter. So he gets more.
It's not very mysterious.
There's nothing wrong with signaling one's belief that an issue is cert worthy, even if that justice doesn't think now is the best time to grant cert under present circumstances. It's just a way of balancing the Court's caseload in a way that the justice thinks best while informing litigants that they should not give up on the issue.
I don't know why this is being framed as unreasonable. The Supreme Court denies cert on hundreds of important issues every year. As a matter of necessity, all the justices have to prioritize the cases they think most urgent given that the Court can only do so much. At times, we all have to backburner important things because they are not the *most* important thing at a particular moment.
"I don't know why this is being framed as unreasonable. The Supreme Court denies cert on hundreds of important issues every year."
And that's unreasonable, too. They're working part time. That's part of what makes this so galling: Why don't they have time to take the case now?
Because they're about to go on a five month long vacation, that's why!
Too bad the Constitution didn't give the President the authority to call the court into session and keep them there to address important Constitutional issues.
Indeed.
Eh, it's only three months.
"Because they're about to go on a five month long vacation, that's why!"
No, Brett, that is a rank falsehood. The first Monday in October is 18 weeks from today. SCOTUS is scheduled to remain in session until June 26 at the earliest. https://www.scotusblog.com/calendar/
The recess (not a vacation) between the end of the 2024 term and the beginning of the 2025 term will be no longer than three months and one week.
You are lying with impunity, Brett.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last case in which they heard oral arguments?
That would be argument on the government's motion for partial stays of preliminary injunctions in three birthright citizenship cases on May 15.
Well, not exactly a case.
Nah, I just guestimated instead of counting on my fingers.
It's a vacation so far as people whose rights are going unvindicated because the Court isn't taking cases are concerned. If they've got time to write books, they've got time to take cases.
They have traditionally handed down three Summer Order Lists and other miscellaneous orders. Sometimes, they do something more significant, and with all the Trump litigation, fairly likely this year.*
[See, e.g., Department of Education v. Louisiana, a denial of a request for a partial stay by the Biden Administration on 8/16/24.]
Kavanaugh references "next Term or two." The four cert grants are for "next term" as is. They have only taken a few 2025-6 Term cases. There will be many more.
==
* They had a special oral argument mid-May regarding birthright citizenship, for instance.
That's an institutional complaint, not a complaint about Justice Kavanaugh in particular. But within the institutional constraints that Justice Kavanaugh must currently operate in, at least for the time being, the actions complained about in the above post are not unreasonable.
Black man’s lack of self-awareness is straight up pathological. It was literally two weeks ago that Blackman mocked Sotomayer for suggesting the courts even take second amendment cases at all. Blackman said the courts shouldn’t protect the second amendment because gun owners will remedy it themselves and shoot government officials.
What happened Blackman? Why aren’t you just shooting people over this ruling? Thought you were a tough guy. Or do you just talk tough?
That literally never happened.
That literally did happen here:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/16/does-justice-sotomayor-really-want-to-know-what-the-remedy-would-be-if-the-government-confiscated-everyones-guns/
No, an event literally happened which you weirdly interpret in that manner. Where did he suggest that the Court shouldn't protect the 2nd amendment? He just said that IF the government did that, the public wouldn't wait on the Court's hyper leisurely response. Now, if the judiciary moved with the speed typical of defending illegal aliens, the public would have no time to get around to shooting anybody.
"There is an important lesson to be learned here. Courts cannot solve all problems. Courts should not solve all problems. Courts will not solve all problems."
Guess you never read it in the first place.
This is a common problem: Somebody says X. You think X implies Y.
You then proceed to claim they said Y.
But they didn't, they said X. Maybe they don't agree with you that X implies Y, maybe they do. But they said what they said, not what you read into it.
One thing this SCOTUS term will definitely be remembered for: Josh Blackman losing his remaining tatters of credibility. He really needs to hope that the MAGA federal court appointment that he's been shamelessly seeking actually materializes.
"And where is Justice Barrett on these issues?"
Five Justices say nothing, one Justice takes driveby shots.
We know the three liberals will uphold these types of laws.
Roberts joined with the other conservatives regarding certain 2A issues, but this specific class of 2A issues does not seem to be his concern. At least, not as much as the four piping up today.
Barrett very well might be the key.
If you try to totally abolish the right to keep and bear arms, Roberts will, I expect with great reluctance, vote to stop you. If you "merely" impose arbitrary restrictions on that exercise, he won't care.
Or she's not because she agrees with Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson-Brown.
Barrett has leaned toward supporting the gun rights side:
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-on-guns
She doesn't agree with the liberals. She seems to be more likely to vote with the gun rights side than Roberts.
Her vote seems to be key.
We know where Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson stand: They'll basically uphold any infringement of the 2nd amendment, they want to treat the amendment as a nullity.
We know where Thomas stands: He wrote and actually meant Bruen, wants the 2nd amendment upheld to the same degree the 1st amendment is.
That leaves 5 Justices remaining. They all voted for Bruen, so are presumptively not totally anti-gun, like the Court's 'liberals'. But they voted with the 'liberals' in Rahimi, so we also know that they didn't actually support the test in Bruen, are comfortable with violating the 2nd amendment if they don't like the implications of upholding it.
My guess is that Roberts would approve of basically any gun law short of a total ban, and total bans having been taken off the table now, he's effectively in the 'liberals' camp on gun control.
That means that any gun law that even one of Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett approve of is going to be upheld.
I think that, once Thomas retires or dies, we're screwed at the Court.
Well, yeah. Actions have consequences. If Trump is going to fill up the docket with nonsense like the birthright citizenship case then it's going to squeeze out the ability for the Court to do other stuff. This also applies to the government's own ability to advocate effectively for the issues it supposedly cares about. But 4D chess or something, I guess.
Maybe he feels a need to at least go through the motions of listening to the arguments they make. Apparently that's something a Justice Blackman wouldn't bother with.
Well, a Justice Blackman SHOULDN'T bother waiting for yet another circuit to grossly violate Bruen, before telling all of the circuits to cut it out. Once one circuit violates a Supreme court ruling, that's good enough reason to take the case.
If the 9th circuit feels the need to butt in, let them file an amicus brief.
I like how Brett once again pretends he understands Bruen better than the people who actually voted for Bruen.
I agree with the guy who WROTE Bruen. I think that makes my stance pretty reasonable.
I don't think the other justices fail to understand Bruen. They just thought again, and decided they weren't going to follow it. But don't want to say so...
With a supposedly 6-3 conservative majority we don't have 5 votes to win here
Roberts and Barrett are not in favor of protecting semi auto rifles
The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle. I own a Walter 40 handgun also semiautomatic.
There’s nothing to discuss here. Clear 2A violation.
I mean clown show.
The second amendment is self-enforcing. They can only enforce it if you choose to comply.