Published September 19, 2026 at 2:30 PM ET · Updated September 19, 2026 at 4:25 PM ET
Law professor uses assault weapons case to revisit Heller precedent
1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by Bearing Arms. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A law professor is using an assault weapons case to revisit the Supreme Court's Heller precedent. The effort focuses on how the landmark Second Amendment ruling applies to assault weapons.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 11 d ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 11 d ago from Bearing Arms.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Heller recognized an individual right to keep a handgun for self-defense in the home and said longstanding prohibitions like felon bans remain presumptively lawful. Caetano held the amendment reaches prima facie all bearable arms, and unusual cannot just mean not in common use in 1789. Whether AR-15 style rifles are protected is what the Court has agreed to decide next; the question is open.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited: the Court noted that longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sale) remain presumptively lawful. D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
