Error by Anti-Gun SCOTUS Justices

Quote of the Day

#2A TERRIBLE ERROR BY ANTI-GUN SCOTUS JUSTICES. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. In today’s Cargill/bump stock opinion, the below statement from Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: “Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the [Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES.” In my view, this is a devastating legal admission by the left that AR-15s are “in common use” and cannot be banned under Heller/Bruen.

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar @fourboxesdiner
Posted on X, June 14, 2024

While I think it is an error on their part, I don’t think the legal implications are as clear cut as Smith implies. His claim presumes the justices will be consistent with previous writings. I could easily see Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson saying “in common use” when they see that to their advantage as in the bump stock case. If the guns are in common use and easily simulate fully automatic firearms, then commonly available is a bad thing. In a future case, involving an “assault weapon” ban, claiming they cannot be consider in common use because they are less than 5%* of all guns in the U.S. It is “whatever is needed to justify my conclusions”, not what the word of law says, or what I said yesterday.

But, the important thing is that we should celebrate the elimination of the bump stock ban and the slap down on the ATF claiming they can rewrite the law. This is a great precedent and will be useful in many other cases.

In related news, I received a text message from lawyer friend Mike B.:

I find it charming that Sotomayor explains how to bump fire an AR-15 in her dissent. How far we’ve come.

* I asked Copilot, “What percentage of all firearms in the U.S. are of a type similar to the AR-15?” Copilot responded with:

As of the data available, AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles, often referred to as Modern Sporting Rifles, account for an estimated 19.8 million units1. Considering the total number of firearms in civilian possession in the U.S. is around 434 million, AR-15 style rifles make up approximately 4.6% of all firearms in the country. This percentage is based on the figures indicating that about 30.2% of gun owners, which is about 24.6 million people, reported owning an AR-15 or similarly styled rifle2. It’s important to note that these numbers are estimates and the actual figures may vary. The AR-15 style rifles have seen a significant increase in production over the years, rising from around one percent of all firearms produced in the early 1990s to almost a quarter in 20203.

Never mind that Copilot’s logic is faulty**. I can’t imagine those justices really care anyway.

** if 24.6 million people own AR-15s, the total number of AR-15 should be at something closer (or greater than) 24.6 million, I think it is unlikely there are 4.8 million people sharing ownership of a rifle which is not canceled out by millions of others owning two (or ten) AR-15s.


5 thoughts on “Error by Anti-Gun SCOTUS Justices

  1. “This is a great president and will be useful in many other cases.”

    That’s a typo I wasn’t expecting to see…

  2. ” This percentage is based on the figures indicating that about 30.2% of gun owners, which is about 24.6 million people, reported owning an AR-15 or similarly.”
    How many people you know would REPORT they have an AR-15?
    Ya, I’m doing a survey for the BATF and was wanting to know how many AR15’s you have?
    I’m not sure, we have them hidden all over the place, but at least 5? Maybe more? Sorry I can’t be more accurate for you. We know how important government stats are.
    Is AI that stupid? Or is it just playing stupid?
    And yes, words mean what the communist wants them to mean. And all of it has no truck with a dictionary. What’s in common use today, is completely bannable tomorrow.
    Once we let them walk past “Shall not be infringed”, the gun world was their oyster. (Communists and woman, give them an inch and they think they’re a ruler.)
    And as for Sotomayor being a lesbian communist that doesn’t give two dry cow turds about the constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof? Well, if it walks like a duck…….

  3. Would be fascinating to know what the real number was. Of course, it might be hard to count, because of interchangeable uppers (is that lower with three totally different uppers one gun, or three, for counting purposes?), finished 80% lowers, and variations of 3D printed lowers.

  4. The judiciary has found multiple ways to justify violating a very simple phrase…
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…so this won’t even be a speed bump for them. We live in a post constitutional world where our freedoms and rights are totally dependent on the OPINIONS of black robed pirates infesting the bench who issue rulings based on their FEELINGS and their political beliefs. NOT on the Constitution. Whoever controls the judiciary gets to decide which “laws” matter, which don’t and who gets to ignore the laws.

Comments are closed.