Supreme Court will consider whether laws called assault weapons bans violate the Second Amendment

[BumRushDaShow]

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. Since the 6 fascist court majority are so afraid of their security, a problem they themselves created, I would be

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]

2. Or their fears could cause them to vote against the bans

[ashredux]

3. If they do, well, then, it's machine guns for everyone

And maybe small artillery as well

[erronis]

7. Who said "small artillery"? And one boy's small is anothers ginormous.

[ashredux]

4. If they do, well, then, it's machine guns for everyone

And maybe small artillery as well

[pansypoo53219]

5. how come they ignore the well-regulated part of the 2nd?

[ificandream]

12. You know, one of these years .. not in my lifetime ... the Court will finally take "well-regulated' into account.

And overhaul their definition of the Second Amendment.

You read it here first.

[maxsolomon]

14. If you had participated in DU's long-ago Gungeon debates, you'd know

"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]

15. language does change.

[maxsolomon]

16. Tell that to the "Originalists"

on the SCOTUS

[PCB66]

17. This was addressed in the Heller decision

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]

6. It would seem to me

there would have to be a CLEAR definition of what 'arms' are.
A Handgun?
A Machine gun?
A Rocket-Propelled Grenade?
A tank?

[erronis]

8. Ballistic missile? Bullets made with spent uranium? (Or not spent yet.)

[Bayard]

9. It was written for muskets

Little did they imagine the current state of affairs.

[Torchlight]

10. With so many Americans living in fear of someone lost knocking on their door,

(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]

11. "Supreme Court will consider"

It won’t ‘consider’ anything – the conservatives’ minds are made up to strike down AWBs.

[bluestarone]

13. The only possible way and i mean only possible way THIS supreme court would ban assault weapons is

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]

18. If they're so original

The 2nd Amendment only allows muskets

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

19. That's already been decided in Caetano v Massachusetts in 2016 which said the 2A is not limited to the tech at the time

And that decision was unanimous, no dissents. RBG, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor did not disagree with the per curium decision that 2A protects all arms including those not in existence at the time of the founding.