Quote of the Day
The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.
John Commerford
NRA-ILA Executive Director
Posted on X July 8, 2026
I wish them luck and a fast track through the legal system to complete victory.
Of course, you know SCOTUS has accepted two “assault weapon” ban cases and is expected to rule them unconstitutional. It would be nice for both state and Federal courts to start really coming down hard on the anti-gun legislation and lower court rulings.
In related news Mark W. Smith is of the opinion the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn New Jersey’s “assault weapon” ban as well:
It is my expectation that the next year will result in a surplus of Liberal Tears to clean and lubricate your collection of AR-15s and AK-47s.
All well and good to see the court system finally doing its job but it is fragile without a broader change in public opinion. There is a legitimate question as to how much of the anti gun movement is astroturf. Certainly the activist base is but polls indicate broader support if at lower saliance
And what is going to happen with the 3rd Circuit and New Jersey’s ban and SCOTUS with the two cases it accepted?
Second Amendment won in the 3rd Circuit – Circuit split now. The author of the opinion, Judge Arianna Freeman, is a Biden appointee.
Edited from GROK response:
No US Court of Appeals Circuit (federal appellate court) has found bans on AR-15-style assault weapons or standard-capacity magazines (typically those holding more than 10 rounds) unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
In fact, every federal circuit court that has issued a precedential decision on these types of restrictions—both before and after the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision—has upheld them (or found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits in preliminary injunction stages).
The Seventh Circuit’s July 9, 2026, decision (in consolidated cases involving Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act and related local ordinances) upheld the state’s ban on AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines. The court reversed district court rulings that had granted injunctions in some cases and held that the restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. It emphasized that semi-automatic AR-15s are not materially different from machine guns like the M16 (which Heller indicated could be banned) and are more like military weapons than arms protected for individual self-defense.
The Supreme Court had previously declined to review an earlier Seventh Circuit preliminary injunction ruling in these cases.
Other circuits that have addressed similar bans post-Bruen have also upheld them: First Circuit: Upheld Massachusetts’ assault weapon and standard-capacity magazine ban (Capen v. Campbell, 2025) and Rhode Island’s standard-capacity magazine ban (Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 2024). The court found the restrictions consistent with historical traditions of regulating unusually dangerous weapons.
Second Circuit: Upheld Connecticut’s restrictions on assault weapons and standard-capacity magazines (National Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Lamont, 2025), finding them consistent with traditions regulating novel or unusually dangerous weapons.
Fourth Circuit (en banc): Upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban (Bianchi v. Brown / Snope v. Brown, 2024), concluding the weapons fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection (similar to the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning) or that the ban aligns with historical regulation of excessively dangerous weapons.
Ninth Circuit (en banc): Upheld California’s standard-capacity magazine ban (Duncan v. Bonta, 2025), holding that standard-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment or that the ban fits within historical traditions of regulating especially dangerous components or uses of weapons.
D.C. Circuit: Upheld D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds (Hanson v. District of Columbia, 2024), finding it consistent with historical analogues under Bruen’s framework.
One of the problems with the AI summaries is that it looks more at the curated and mainstream media version of events, rather than a “these are the legalistic word-games the forked-tongued lawyers and wicked politicians play” view of events, which is considerably more nuanced.
Nuance is not really AI’s strong suit.
Be that as ot may, there is definitely a lower court insurrection against the Supreme Court and the Constitution
Agreed. And this is not a new thing.
Exactly – and blaming this on some sort of AI mirage is silly – this is a compilation of US Court of Appeals Circuit Decisions, not AI “opinion.”
Some Federal District Courts seem to understand Bruen and are using that analysis, but the Appeals Circuits are still in rebellion.
It has seemed like the USSC has been dragging its feet on these issues, but I suspect they have been waiting for an Appeals Circuit to strike down one of these bans so that there would be a split. That has not happened, but the Court has finally decided to step up.
I expect a favorable ruling.
There won’t be any “liberal tears”. They gun grabbing left will simply try again. And again. And again. And again…. They know that they only have to get lucky once…whereas we have to be lucky EVERY TIME. They know that as long as they are allowed to keep trying to take away our Rights eventually they WILL WIN. The left NEVER quits, never gives up, never goes away. As long as they are allowed to continue stealing and wasting oxygen they WILL keep trying to destroy freedom.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » THERE’S NEVER TOO MANY LIBERAL TEARS: “Assault Weapon” Bans Falling Will Result in a Surplus
Joe, why do you assume that they will lose? They have all day, every day, to poison people’s minds against us, since they don’t work.
At some point we need to stop talking about the philosophy of owning firearms, and start using them against the forces of darkness.
Mostly because I trust Mark Smith’s read of the courts.
The short version is we have been losing in many of the appeals courts but there is a selection bias. Only the circuits with “assault weapon” bans are hearing the cases. And those circuits have a “blue”/anti-gun bias. The third circuit may be the exception. SCOTUS is certainly an exception.
In the 1970’s we had the formation of the “National Council to Control Handguns” and “National Coalition to Ban Handguns”. The push to ban handguns failed. And the entire movement gave up on handguns as a class. You just don’t have to fight on the handgun issue. Specific features of handguns, sure. But not as an entire class. They needed something new to rally against. That something new was created by Josh Sugarmann. Josh Sugarmann initiated the campaign against “assault weapons.”
I believe the SCOTUS ruling by July 2027 will put semiauto rifles into the same situation as handguns are today. And I believe that same, or a similar ruling by July of 2028, will give protection to normal capacity magazines. The anti-gun movement will realize the best they can do is nibble at the edges and even that will be a losing battle. I believe it will be demoralizing and resistance will essentially disappear. They just won’t have a “new topic” such as Sugarmann’s to rally around that can easily fool the public. This is their last real stand. The rest will just be clean up. It may take some prosecutions. But we already have civil cases brought by the DOJ. It is a small step to criminal cases by the DOJ.
Mark Smith takes a rather Polyana view of what the courts will do, and has MUCH more faith in Barrett than I do. AI is correct in that there is currently no circuit split.
One commenter on a post I made said this.
“1) You are quite right that there is no true distinction between military arms issued to infantrymen and “civilian” arms. What is a Winchester Model 70, after all, if not a sporterized Mauser?
There might be a distinction when it comes to crew-served weapons like a 75mm howitzer, but that is not the legal issue in this case.
2) That being said, as a practical matter, there is no way the Court is EVER going to rule that civilians can have “military” weapons for the “amelioration of tyranny” no matter what Tench Coxe or anyone else wrote in the 18th century.
The Supreme Court is part of the government. It is defended by force of arms against people like us. It is never going to rule that we the people have the right to overthrow it by force of arms if we think it is tyrannical. Indeed, the government it is part of is a global military empire that makes the infringements by George III’s Redcoats look like child’s play.
My prediction is that the the best we can hope for is that they will say that states cannot ban AR-15s outright because of the “common use” standard the Court itself created out of thin air, BUT they will allow registration, licensing, severe restrictions on where ARs can be used and carried, magazine restrictions, and Red Flag confiscations for so much as passing gas in the barn.
Expect that states like NY and CA will impose hoops to jump through to get an “assault weapon permit” that will cost hundreds or thousands, long waiting periods, magazine restrictions to five or even three rounds (just like duck hunters, am I right?), severe storage conditions inspected by the police, and some stupid requirements like “you can only shoot it at an approved range between the hours of 11:00 am and 1:00 pm on Tuesdays.”
3) “citizens have to decide whether to fight the political battle… or decide to be ready when the SWAT teams come to the front door in the middle of the night.”
People are simply not going to do this unless they are urban (mostly black) felons. The states with assault weapons bas have already figured out that they avoid this by letting the white Fudds register and keep their guns until they die, when they will be confiscated from the estate.”
If in the final decision on AR bans there is even a single word on licensing or registration, the lawyers for the states will exploit that for another 20 years if it ever even gets fixed by SCOTUS.
In the end, I think we aren’t going to be able to rely on the courts for justice. I think this is going to be a political fight at the state level.
I’m going to create a blog post to be published July 1, 2027, with this comment as the QOTD. We can reevaluate your prediction then.
🙂
I’m not a prophet. I just have little faith in the courts. I hope my commenter is wrong about all of this.
I hope so, too. I tend to be an optimist. I realize there is a significant chance I could be wrong. I readily admit your and your commenter’s view are well within the range of possibilities.
Still, I created the blog post with the title, “Pollyanna, Prophet, Pessimist?” It is currently scheduled for July 1, 2027. But if the court releases the decision earlier, I will move the publish date to match.
Perhaps with its future rulings on ARs and Standard-Capacity magazines the Court will also include some language anticipating backdoor efforts like “vampire” rules, sensitive places restrictions, licensing, waiting periods, storage conditions, law enforcement inspections, etc.
The Court knows that these efforts will be made and “cutting them off at the pass” would seem to make sense.
Otherwise the Courts will be dealing with this issue continually for the foreseeable future.
It was said about the Jesuit Librarian at the University I attended eons ago, “That he wouldn’t say anything bad about anyone.” Someone asked him about the Devil. He said, “You must admit he is a very hard worker.”
The same can be said about the civilian disarmament lobby (why obscure their goal with their words?).
Does anyone know if it is possible to buy a handgun for legal possession and storage in one’s home in D.C. yet?