Supreme Court will consider whether laws called assault weapons bans violate the Second Amendment
Source: AP
Updated 1:22 PM EDT, June 30, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) A Supreme Court that has expanded gun rights will consider whether bans on semiautomatic rifles, often called assault weapons, violate the Second Amendment.
The justices said Tuesday they will hear appeals challenging bans on the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic firearms in Connecticut and the Chicago area.
Similar laws are in place in about a dozen states, covering major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, but Democrats have supported renewing it in response to a series of mass shootings. States have also continued to pass their own laws, including recent measures in Virginia and Rhode Island.
It is the latest high-profile dispute over guns to reach the court since its conservative majority handed down a landmark ruling in 2022 that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country. Arguments are expected to be heard in the fall.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-assault-weapons-ban-ar15-a362863265ba8630e71068fe5b75bb8e
ImNotGod
(1,333 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2026, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)
surprised if they rule against the bans. They are spending a ton of taxpayer money on security upgrades, protection from the very gun toting wingnuts they emboldened.
PatSeg
(54,117 posts)ashredux
(2,988 posts)And maybe small artillery as well
erronis
(25,041 posts)ashredux
(2,988 posts)And maybe small artillery as well
pansypoo53219
(23,275 posts)ificandream
(11,872 posts)And overhaul their definition of the Second Amendment.
You read it here first.
maxsolomon
(39,462 posts)"Well-Regulated" is an anachronistic term that means "well-equipped" or "well-functioning", not actual regulations on who can bear arms. Any yahoo qualifies (except Hunter Biden).
More importantly, the preamble is just explaining why the gubmint can't infringe - because we need militias for "security" (AKA suppressing slave revolts).
Moreover, what are "Arms"? Flintlocks? Full-automatic firearms? Rocket-propelled grenades? The ambiguity means "Arms" are anything we decide they are.
We already know the answer the SCOTUS will give r.e. "Assault Weapons" laws: guns must be free and omnipresent.
pansypoo53219
(23,275 posts)maxsolomon
(39,462 posts)on the SCOTUS
PCB66
(209 posts)In the vernacular of the time when the Bill of Rights was drafted "well regulated" meant well supplied. Not what we would call regulated by the government nowadays.
I suspect that since they took up the case they have intentions of overturning the bans in the states that have them. otherwise they wouldn't have taken the case.
Probably one last big "fuck you" by Thomas.
Mr.Bee
(1,997 posts)there would have to be a CLEAR definition of what 'arms' are.
A Handgun?
A Machine gun?
A Rocket-Propelled Grenade?
A tank?
erronis
(25,041 posts)Bayard
(30,721 posts)Little did they imagine the current state of affairs.
Torchlight
(7,269 posts)(or asserting fear as the most convenient excuse to shoot someone), I'd be surprised to see anything other than current restrictions begin relaxed, removed, and thinned.
J_William_Ryan
(3,672 posts)It wont consider anything the conservatives minds are made up to strike down AWBs.
bluestarone
(22,586 posts)If these weapons could NOT be banned in every court house or supreme court room, and RALLIES across the country. I'm 100% against assault weapons BUT if they are allowed by the courts, then these weapons should be allowed wherever judges hold hearings against these bans.
purr-rat beauty
(1,677 posts)The 2nd Amendment only allows muskets