The Supremes

[Js1 87166]

There they go again

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act for redistricting cases in a large swath of the South, ruling against the Justice Department and voters of color who had challenged Galveston, Texas’s county commission map for how it been redrawn to dismantle a district where minorities made up a majority of the population.

The conservative appeals court on Thursday reversed its previous precedent that allowed multiple minority groups to join together in challenges to redistricting plans alleged to be discriminatory under the VRA.

Circuit Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the majority opinion that so-called coalition districts are “inconsistent with the text” of the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/01/politics/5th-circuit-voting-rights-act-redistricting-south/index.html

[TwiceHorn 32053]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

Circuit Judge Edith Jones

Hail Satan.

[jimmyjazz 47095]

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Circuit Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the majority opinion that so-called coalition districts are “inconsistent with the text” of the Voting Rights Act.

Cool, cool.  Precedent and all that.  Founding Fathers.  Wait, what?

[tx 3 putt 78664]

[jimmyjazz 47095]

That's not threatening at all.  Business as usual.  Nothing to see here.

[Jive Turkey 12991]

 

[tx 3 putt 78664]

12 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

 

thanks for the invite !

[Nice Guy Eddie 13724]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Any disclosure by Thomas means little because he has created his own disclosure rules. By which I mean that he doesn't disclose trips or gifts that he doesn't want to disclose because of a phantom practice that an unknown person told him was acceptable. Public figures like Thomas or Bob Menendez can't go away fast enough.

Ridiculous that the only ongoing checks on Judicial are impeachment/conviction. I suppose Congress and the President could in theory take away their budget and salary.

[tx 3 putt 78664]

If you can't understand financial disclosure forms, you shouldn't be interpreting The Constitution.

end of story 

[Js1 87166]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a long-shot lawsuit brought by Missouri attempting to block legal proceedings in former President Donald Trump's hush money case in New York.

The court rejected Missouri's bid to sue the state of New York, meaning the justices will not lift the gag order or delay sentencing in the unusual claim brought by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican who is running for a full term this fall.

Many commentators said the filing was more of a political stunt aimed at gaining publicity than a serious legal claim.

The brief order noted that two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, would have allowed the state to at least file its lawsuit directly at the Supreme Court although they would not grant the emergency relief that Bailey wanted. That tracks their approach in similar cases involving one state suing another.

 

[tx 3 putt 78664]

53 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

The brief order noted that two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, would have allowed the state to at least file its lawsuit directly at the Supreme Court

 

both are illegitimate justices, beyond corrupt 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13724]

On 7/27/2024 at 12:02 PM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Wouldn’t term limits for the Supremes also require an amendment?  I think I would be wary of any momentum to start amending the constitution during this particular simulation 

SIAP. Heard George Conway talk on a podcast about a theory how the SCOTUS term limits could potentially be managed through Congress without an amendment. 

The lifetime appointment is in the Constitution so the work around is that Congress creates the position of a senior justice who sits outside of the voting 9. The lifetime appointment remains. When a justice hits 18 years, they move into senior status, and a new justice is appointed who takes over the voting duties of the senior justice. Conway thought that the senior status could not apply to the Chief Justice who could potentially go beyond 18 years.

Who knows. I'm far from a Constitutional scholar but this makes sense to me.

 

 

 

[DDD Dad 14641]

6 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

 

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

thanks for the invite !

 

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Any disclosure by Thomas means little because he has created his own disclosure rules. By which I mean that he doesn't disclose trips or gifts that he doesn't want to disclose because of a phantom practice that an unknown person told him was acceptable. Public figures like Thomas or Bob Menendez can't go away fast enough.

Ridiculous that the only ongoing checks on Judicial are impeachment/conviction. I suppose Congress and the President could in theory take away their budget and salary.

 

[elfenix 34729]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Any disclosure by Thomas means little because he has created his own disclosure rules. By which I mean that he doesn't disclose trips or gifts that he doesn't want to disclose because of a phantom practice that an unknown person told him was acceptable. Public figures like Thomas or Bob Menendez can't go away fast enough.

Ridiculous that the only ongoing checks on Judicial are impeachment/conviction. I suppose Congress and the President could in theory take away their budget and salary.

*laughs in Clarence Thomas*

[chainsaw 10274]

21 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Dark Brandon where art thou? He's got official immunity

 

[tx 3 putt 78664]

Fucking hell !!!!

WTF !!!

 

[BamaATL 16593]

58 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Fucking hell !!!!

WTF !!!

 

Justices Thomas and Alito have already agreed.  

[tx 3 putt 78664]

18 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Justices Thomas and Alito have already agreed.  

they’re foaming at the mouth to turn over brown v board of education 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

they’re foaming at the mouth to turn over brown v board of education 

that's what's called foreplay in the Thomas household/RV.  

[tx 3 putt 78664]

 

[tx 3 putt 78664]

How is this legal ???

 

[Satchel 6982]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

How is this legal ???

 

Musk and friends won’t be satisfied until they’re able to conduct business just as it done in Russia.  

[tx 3 putt 78664]

Just now, Satchel said:

Musk and friends won’t be satisfied until they’re able to conduct business just as it done in Russia.  

hopefully true ….

 

[Biff Tannen 46148]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

hopefully true ….

 

No way this is true. 

[tx 3 putt 78664]

37 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

No way this is true. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34101]

S. Korea is in so many ways the country we wish we were.

[Biff Tannen 46148]

9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

There’s the rub

 

Quote

Now, if you’re thinking that all this sounds too good to be true, well, that’s because it kinda is. There definitely is a catch, and that catch is the fact that these ultra-fast charging batteries require some pretty solid infrastructure for you to get the claimed nine-minute charge time. If we look at China, whose EV makers offer similar charging speeds, 480kW and sometimes even 600kW chargers are an absolute must. But even in China, charging stations of this capacity are far and few in between.

So the real challenge here isn’t so much whether or not it’s possible—we know that it certainly is—but rather, how quickly ultra-fast-charging infrastructure can be made available to the masses.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of cost. At present, it costs way more to manufacture solid-state EV batteries than Lithium-ion and LFP batteries found in current EVs—around three or four times, to be specific.

 

[Captainant 28504]

11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

How is this legal ???

 

I think @dcbc is probably the best person to tell us how this is legal

[dcbc 14644]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I think @dcbc is probably the best person to tell us how this is legal

It appears to be the equivalent of Fort Worth rules in golf.

 

[TwiceHorn 32053]

13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

How is this legal ???

 

Couple of weird things.  First, O'Connor was originally appointed to the Dallas Division, where he was one of a dozen or more judges and random assignment meant something.  At that time, he had a rep as kind of a loose cannon, but not too different from many newb judges, see, e.g. Aileen Cannon, the loosest Cannon of them all.

It started getting weird when he moved to the Fort Worth Division.  Initially not that weird, because "they" (both D and R administrations) had had some trouble finding qualified local lawyers for the federal bench in FW.  For a while you had Belew and Mahon (both senior status) and McBryde and Means.  The first three are gone and Means is now Senior, so you have O'Connor and  Trump appointee Mark Pittman, who have both shown their Nazi tendencies, with Pittman being a blatant FedSoc pick.  And with those two in the main rotation, there's a high likelihood of getting a MAGA-type judge.

OConnor was appointed in 2007 and was very non-controversial.  It wasn't until he moved to FW sometime in the 2010s that he started to reveal his colors, including ruling the ACA and parts of the Gun Control Act unconstitutional.  And these cases started before Trumpism began in earnest.

OConnor may have been a really long game, early version of the Texas christofascist movement, or maybe it's just a bit of a coincidence.

As to the recusal issue, it's common, if not required, to recuse when you own the stock of a party.  But the party here is not Tesla, but rather X/Twitter and/or Musk individually.  Obviously, the well-known ownership of both by Musk could/does create the appearance of impropriety, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk on recusal.

Edited August 10 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 28504]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As to the recusal issue, it's common, if not required, to recuse when you own the stock of a party.  But the party here is not Tesla, but rather X/Twitter and/or Musk individually.  Obviously, the well-known ownership of both by Musk could/does create the appearance of impropriety, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk on recusal.

I mean, TWTR was taken private largely on the backs of TSLA shareholders and with loans secured by TSLA stocks. I think it's a nice argument in a vacuum that "the two are wholly unrelated", but there's strong evidence that supports Tesla's reliance on Twitter to keep its investor sentiment, and by connection, stock value up. Nevermind that Musk is the singular totem head of both organizations

50 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It appears to be the equivalent of Fort Worth rules in golf.

And I'm not familiar with that term of art, but I presume it's something like "that's just how we do things here"?

[TwiceHorn 32053]

Not arguing for or against, but the idea of recusal over stock ownership is that the judicial decisions might affect the stock price and thus the wealth of the jurist in question.  One can argue endlessly over whether the type of case, parties, etc. is the type of thing that would affect stock price, and all of it would involve a high degree of speculation, most likely.

Thus, a good faith judge will recuse or liquidate, maybe both to avoid any question.  This seems to be so routine that I'm not sure there's much case law stating standards or any kind of rule.  But see this. https://fixthecourt.com/2021/09/100-federal-judges-failed-recuse-owned-stock-litigant-whats-excuses/  Implicit in that, though, is agreement that stock ownership in a party nearly mandates recusal.

It just gets blurrier when the party is connected to, but is not actually, the party whose stock the judge owns.

Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, Reed O'Connor seems to be a partisan turd and really not all that bright.  Thankfully, he has no connection to UT.

[TwiceHorn 32053]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Thankfully, he has no connection to UT.

Guess this is an ok place for it, but I saw an article discussing the production of reactionary conservatives at Yale and similar institutions.  https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/jul/27/why-yale-law-is-so-good-at-producing-reactionaries/

The main feature of it seems to be a feeling of alienation at the liberal environment.

That strikes me as some severely weak shit. 

UT Law is as liberal as they come, just like UT itself.  I was a conservative at the time I attended in the late 80s and early 90s, but never felt actually alienated.  I wasn't super-political, but still recognized myself as likely in the minority.  We'd joke about forming the "white, Christian straight guys" legal society, but as white supremacist as that sounds, it was a fucking joke.  No big deal, not some existential crisis.  None of us actually joined the Federalist Society, which then was regarded as not much more than an ineffectual counterbalance to all the liberal organizations on the campus.

More broadly speaking, some of the liberality/progressiveness at UT, of the more foolish variety (shanty and apartheid divestment comes to mind), sort of reinforced my conservativeness, but not to the degree I couldn't reconsider later.  That's just crazy.

Different, more benign times I guess.

 

[dcbc 14644]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

And I'm not familiar with that term of art, but I presume it's something like "that's just how we do things here"?

I think Fort Worth rules in golf state that if you don't hit your drive further than the ladies' tee box, you have to play the rest of the hole with your dick hanging out.

 

I don't know anything about this judge, this case, the basis for jurisdiction for an out of state defendant, or whether anyone has moved to recuse the judge for ruling on a case involving twitter, where he owns stock in a different company in which Elmo is involved.  So as to the "legality" of it, who knows?  It's certainly a candidate for the smell test.

Edited August 10 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 32053]

9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I think Fort Worth rules in golf state that if you don't hit your drive further than the ladies' tee box, you have to play the rest of the hole with your dick hanging out.

 

I don't know anything about this judge, this case, the basis for jurisdiction for an out of state defendant, or whether anyone has moved to recuse the judge for ruling on a case involving twitter, where he owns stock in a different company in which Elmo is involved.  So as to the "legality" of it, who knows?  It's certainly a candidate for the smell test.

I have mixed feelings about forum-shopping. If it's legal, even just technically, it's probably incumbent on the lawyer to consider forum-shopped venues and at least discuss them with the client.  Maybe as a judgment call it is malpractice-proof.

As you know, for years it was a staple of plaintiff's lawyers seeking generous juries in the Valley that had no connection to the case, otherwise.  More recently in Johnson County, among others.  And of course, plaintiffs and their lawyers tend to be identified with liberal causes.

More recently, it has manifested itself in patent cases in the Eastern and now Western Districts of Texas. among other places.  And those plaintiffs are probably all over, politically.

It's been a long time ago, but I'm sure those liberal and progressive causes filing their civil rights test cases did a bit of forum-shopping here and there.

And now the christofascists have, as usual, taken an accepted if not acceptable technique to new and amazing/appalling "heights" (or depths if you prefer).

[elfenix 34729]

Quote

But then Young offered a caveat, citing the court’s major decision in the Trump immunity case delivered along 6-3 conservative-liberal lines.

Young described the outcome of that case as a “six-member majority, eschewing historical analysis,” that “sought fundamentally to redesign the relationship between the sovereign people and the first citizen of the Republic.”

...

In the footnote at the end of his opinion, Young praised the attorneys involved in the case and encouraged “each of you to continue in trial work.” Young wrote that the federal judiciary appeared to be at a “hinge moment where we need every trial attorney we can get.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/09/politics/reagan-nominee-young-trump-immunity-supreme-court-footnote/index.html

[Brandywine 1330]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:28 AM, Gap03 said:

As shitty as Alito and Thomas are, I'm coming to hate Roberts more than any of them.  He operates under the guise of a traditional SC Justice, but he's obviously been playing the long game to ensure that the U.S. is ultimately an oligarchy where the ultra-rich continue to be able to fuck the rest of us without any recourse.  Between the VRA cases, Citizens United, Loper Bright, etc., it's pretty clear that he exists only to do the Kochs' bidding. 

There was a pretty good piece in the Harvard Law Journal about this, but it predated all the most recent shenanigans:

    The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy (HLJ)

It should be clear by now that, even if we manage to keep Trump out of office, we have to fix the USSC one way or another. 

I’m at a point where I can’t stand Roberts. He’s allowing the conservatives to run all over him on top of showing his true colors. He’s definitely not a moderate or centrist.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

Roberts is a condescending elitist cunt and always has been.

Edited August 11 by ChuckNorrisActionJeans

[tx 3 putt 78664]

4 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Robert is a condescending elitist cunt and always has been.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/

[Captainant 28504]

Reposting here for CR discussion of repercussions of Chevron getting ripped down:

The Guardian: US air force avoids PFAS water cleanup, citing supreme court’s Chevron ruling

The US air force is refusing to comply with an order to clean drinking water it polluted in Tucson, Arizona, claiming federal regulators lack authority after the conservative-dominated US supreme court overturned the “Chevron doctrine”. Air force bases contaminated the water with toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” and other dangerous compounds.

Though former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and legal experts who reviewed the air force’s claim say the Chevron doctrine ruling probably would not apply to the order, the military’s claim that it would represents an early indication of how polluters will wield the controversial court decision to evade responsibility.

 

It appears the air force is essentially attempting to expand the scope of the court’s ruling to thwart regulatory orders not covered by the decision, said Deborah Ann Sivas, director of the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.

[SydneyCarton 49475]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Reposting here for CR discussion of repercussions of Chevron getting ripped down:

The Guardian: US air force avoids PFAS water cleanup, citing supreme court’s Chevron ruling

The US air force is refusing to comply with an order to clean drinking water it polluted in Tucson, Arizona, claiming federal regulators lack authority after the conservative-dominated US supreme court overturned the “Chevron doctrine”. Air force bases contaminated the water with toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” and other dangerous compounds.

Though former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and legal experts who reviewed the air force’s claim say the Chevron doctrine ruling probably would not apply to the order, the military’s claim that it would represents an early indication of how polluters will wield the controversial court decision to evade responsibility.

 

It appears the air force is essentially attempting to expand the scope of the court’s ruling to thwart regulatory orders not covered by the decision, said Deborah Ann Sivas, director of the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.

I expected every company to do this. I didn't expect the first fucking one to be our own military. Jesus this species sucks. 

[Captainant 28504]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I expected every company to do this. I didn't expect the first fucking one to be our own military. Jesus this species sucks. 

Honestly, I'm surprised Biden isnt stepping in on this. But I'm sure Alito could convince Roberts that it would be illegal for Biden to do so

Edited August 13 by Captainant

[wildcat09 29577]

On 8/10/2024 at 3:12 PM, Brandywine said:

I’m at a point where I can’t stand Roberts. He’s allowing the conservatives to run all over him on top of showing his true colors. He’s definitely not a moderate or centrist.

[wildcat09 29577]

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Honestly, I'm surprised Biden isnt stepping in on this. But I'm sure Alito could convince Roberts that it would be illegal for Biden to do so

I'm guessing this decision wasn't made at the White House level. 

[jimmyjazz 47095]

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Honestly, I'm surprised Biden isnt stepping in on this. But I'm sure Alito could convince Roberts that it would be illegal for Biden to do so

I don't see how this couldn't be the kind of thing that Biden issues an EO for.  Sure, they'll push back, but at least try.

[sidis 10011]

43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Reposting here for CR discussion of repercussions of Chevron getting ripped down:

The Guardian: US air force avoids PFAS water cleanup, citing supreme court’s Chevron ruling

The US air force is refusing to comply with an order to clean drinking water it polluted in Tucson, Arizona, claiming federal regulators lack authority after the conservative-dominated US supreme court overturned the “Chevron doctrine”. Air force bases contaminated the water with toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” and other dangerous compounds.

Though former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and legal experts who reviewed the air force’s claim say the Chevron doctrine ruling probably would not apply to the order, the military’s claim that it would represents an early indication of how polluters will wield the controversial court decision to evade responsibility.

 

It appears the air force is essentially attempting to expand the scope of the court’s ruling to thwart regulatory orders not covered by the decision, said Deborah Ann Sivas, director of the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.

[Captainant 28504]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm guessing this decision wasn't made at the White House level. 

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't see how this couldn't be the kind of thing that Biden issues an EO for.  Sure, they'll push back, but at least try.

Being the commander in Chief of the armed forces, I would think he could order the Air Force to clean up their mess

[jimmyjazz 47095]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Being the commander in Chief of the armed forces, I would think he could order the Air Force to clean up their mess

Exactly.  They might try to delay, which would be the point where he should start firing people, and perhaps prosecuting them.

[dcbc 14644]

I think [mention=548]dcbc[/mention] is probably the best person to tell us how this is legal

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/13/judge-in-x-lawsuit-against-advertisers-recuses-he-owned-tesla-stock.html

[C-Man 27777]

Do Americans Have a Constitutional Right to an AR-15? Gun-Rights Groups Ask the Supreme Court

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/do-americans-have-a-constitutional-right-to-an-ar-15-gun-rights-groups-ask-the-supreme-court-aa34fd50

Quote

A showdown over America’s bestselling rifle is heading to the Supreme Court this fall: Gun-rights groups are asking the court to consider whether the AR-15 and other rifles described as assault weapons are deserving of constitutional protection.

Should the conservative Supreme Court take up the case in its new term, it could put some of the gun-control movement’s biggest victories in jeopardy. 

Nine Democratic states and Washington, D.C., have restrictions on the purchase or possession of AR-15 rifles and other firearms labeled assault weapons, with many enacted after a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill more than two dozen first-graders and faculty at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012.

The high court in a landmark 2008 opinion said law-abiding Americans have a right under the Second Amendment to protect themselves with handguns. 

But justices have never said if that right extends to the AR-15.

A makeshift memorial for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. PHOTO: ROBERT F. BUKATY/AP

“The court has yet to weigh in squarely on what kinds of guns can be prohibited,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke University and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “These cases are a lot harder than either side makes them out to be,” he said.

The court in its 2008 opinion said an individual’s right to bear arms is limited to weapons used for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and suggested that dangerous and unusual weapons designed for military use—such as the fully automatic military M16 rifle—fall outside Second Amendment protections.

The ‘perfect vehicle’

An August federal appeals court ruling upholding Maryland’s AR-15 ban offers the Supreme Court a prime chance to enter the fray.

The 10-5 decision by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the most substantial pronouncement from lower courts on the right to own an AR-15 since the Supreme Court expanded Second Amendment protections two years ago in a decision that said gun regulations are valid only if they are consistent with historical precedent. 

The Fourth Circuit’s entire roster of active judges heard the case. Two-thirds of the bench agreed that the AR-15 was a combat weapon too destructive and ill-suited for self-defense to be treated like handguns.

The majority opinion by Judge Harvie Wilkinson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said the AR-15’s fearsome firepower makes it “ill-suited for the vast majority of self-defense situations in which civilians find themselves.” 

He described it as a military-style weapon best suited for “wreaking death and destruction,” quoting a trauma surgeon who likened getting struck in the liver with an AR-15 to a watermelon exploding onto concrete.

“Compared to a handgun, the AR-15 is heavier, longer, harder to maneuver in tight quarters, less readily accessible in an emergency, and more difficult to operate with one hand,” he wrote.

Five judges signed onto a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of disparaging the weapon and its millions of law-abiding owners.

Judge Julius Richardson, a President Donald Trump appointee who wrote the dissent, wrote that AR-15 rounds are more likely to fragment and wobble passing through walls compared with handguns, diminishing the risk to bystanders. He said the rifle’s accuracy only enhances its suitability for self-defense.

“For these reasons, law enforcement has long found the AR-15 to be an effective weapon for urban building raids and hostage situations,” he wrote. He also cited a 2021 survey of AR-15-style rifle owners about their reasons for purchasing the weapon. More than 60% said home defense was a reason.

The gun-rights groups that brought suit against Maryland have asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit decision. They submitted a petition to the court last week that said the case was the “perfect vehicle” to resolve questions over the right to own AR-15s.

In July, the Supreme Court declined to review a similar case on Illinois’s AR-15 ban. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, urged the court to clarify what makes a weapon dangerous and unusual.

But legal observers say the Supreme Court is more likely to take up the case out of Maryland. The lower-court litigation, unlike in the Illinois case, is completed with a final judgment against the plaintiffs and amassed a more extensive evidentiary record. The Fourth Circuit ruling also carries more weight coming from the full bench instead of a typical three-judge panel.

Other appeals courts are currently weighing AR-15 restrictions enacted in New Jersey, California and Connecticut. 

A notorious gun

No other firearm has so divided Americans. Gun owners swear by them. The weapons fire rounds with smooth ease at ferocious speeds. They are lightweight, highly customizable, reliable and built to last—costing about as much as a laptop computer. U.S. civilians own approximately 20 million AR-15s, according to industry estimates. 

The ubiquity of the rifles and owner survey data are helpful evidence for gun-rights plaintiffs, said Dave Kopel, a Second Amendment scholar who has argued that AR-15s should be protected. But enough justices have to be convinced that the rifles aren’t super-dangerous compared with smaller firearms, said Kopel.

While handguns have been used more often in mass shootings, AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles were used in four of the five deadliest mass shootings in American history, according to data from Hamline University’s Violence Prevention Project.

A body is covered with a sheet after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. PHOTO: STEVE MARCUS/LAS VEGAS SUN/AP

In the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, a single man perched in a hotel suite rained more than 1,000 rounds onto a country music festival, killing 60 and wounding hundreds. It was also the weapon of choice for the gunman who attempted to assassinate Trump.

Proponents of AR-15 bans question how often the rifles have saved lives. 

“I’ve never seen a single case where it was at all clear that having an AR-15 as opposed to a handgun led to a better defensive outcome,” said Stanford law professor John Donohue, a gun-policy researcher.