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.
Legal scholars are assessing cases before the Supreme Court involving assault weapons. The cases concern legal questions surrounding assault weapon restrictions.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 3 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Bearing Arms.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Heller held the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. Caetano confirmed protection reaches all bearable arms including those invented after the founding. Whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as arms in common use, and whether bans on them are consistent with the historical tradition of regulation, remains unsettled and is now before the Court.
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
