If SCOTUS rules that Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines are illegal, what happens?

[Aim1]

Friedman v. Highland Park is a case that was recently denied cert by SCOTUS asking whether so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines are constitutionally protected. Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said that cert should have been granted and appeared to have suggested that they would have ruled that they are constitutionally protected. Now with Gorsuch on the bench they may eventually take an assault weapons and high capacity magazine case, although they didn't take it when Scalia was on the court and Gorsuch replaced him. There are other assault weapons and high capacity magazine cases out there besides Friedman v. Highland Park.

If the US Supreme Court did grant cert on an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and ruled that they are not constitutionally protected, what would happen?

I believe some states would protect them and others would. What about the police, I know that many departments use AR15 style rifles, would there be rules carved out for law enforcement only? Would we have to turn ours in if our state didn't protect the ownership of them?

 

[GRIZ22]

It would probably be left to the states. If there was a Democrat POTS and the Democrats controlled both houses it would likely result in a very expensive buy back.

No doubt there would be exemptions for LE for agency owned weapons. There already is with NFA weapons. Don't think it would change things for LE agencies.

All supposition though.

 

[Sunray]

The Court would have to define what an assault weapon is first. Neither an AR-15 style rifle nor it's select fire cousin the M-16 is an assault weapon by definition.
"...denied cert by SCOTUS..." That means they will not hear the petition. Basically says, "Go away and don't bother us."
http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/denying_centiorari.htm
"...likely result in a very expensive buy back..." Far more likely to be an outright ban and confiscation. Just like the ATF did with semi'd M-14 receivers.

 

[AlexanderA]

If the US Supreme Court did grant cert on an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and ruled that they are not constitutionally protected, what would happen?

There is no Supreme Court ruling to date that they are protected. All state-level legislation affecting so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "high capacity" magazines has been upheld by the courts. So, if the Supreme Court ruled that they are not protected, that would represent no change in the current law.

Politically, this might encourage a few more anti-gun states to enact bans. I doubt we would have another federal-level ban anytime soon.

 

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

If the Supreme Court rules that AR's are not constitutionally protected, or that effectively-prohibitionary regulation of them passes the relevant level of constitutional scrutiny, then laws banning them will be constitutionally permissible. Such as law still has to be passed by a legislature. Such laws already exist in some states. There is not currently such a law on the federal level.

All saying "X law is constitutionally permissible" means is that such a law is possible, and that whether such a law exists becomes a political question. One can imagine a literally infinite number of laws that would be constitutionally permissible but do not exist for various political reasons.

 

[rbernie]

There is no Supreme Court ruling to date that they are protected. All state-level legislation affecting so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "high capacity" magazines has been upheld by the courts. So, if the Supreme Court ruled that they are not protected, that would represent no change in the current law.

Politically, this might encourage a few more anti-gun states to enact bans. I doubt we would have another federal-level ban anytime soon.

This seems to represent what I expect and understand.

it would likely result in a very expensive buy back.

Specific to this comment, I can think of no instance where a state declared a specific type of firearm to be legal, and instituted a buy-back or offered any other form of compensation for the loss of property. In each case that I know of (which is probably not exhaustive), the state either grandfathered prior ownership of the contraband item(s) or made it the responsibility of the property owner to dispose of the property prior to the effective date of the ban.

 

[hdwhit]

Aim1 wrote:
If the US Supreme Court did grant cert on an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and ruled that they are not constitutionally protected, what would happen?

It would depend in large measure on what question is asked of the court in your hypothetical ruling and how the ruling is framed.

 

[ATLDave]

To further elaborate on my post above:

Let's imagine that a state - let's pick on NJ, that won't hurt many feelings around here - passes a law that mandates consumption of at least one tuna fish sandwich by every adult resident of NJ per week. (Maybe the tuna and mayo lobbies are really strong in NJ; maybe Jenny McCarthy claims it prevents autism; laws get made for all kinds of crazy reasons.) There are immediately lawsuits filed challenging the constitutionality of this law.

If this challenge is filed in US District court, the loser of this lawsuit (whether NJ, who would be defending the law, or the tuna-sandwich haters/freedom lovers, who would be attacking it) would likely appeal to the relevant US Circuit Court (which would be the 3rd Circuit in this case). Whoever lost at the Circuit court level would likely petition the US Supreme Court to accept the case for further review. If the Sup Ct granted that petition, then, at the end, the Sup Ct would rule on whether the mandatory-tuna-sandwich law could be squared with the Free Exercise clause or substantive Due Process or whatever other constitutional provisions the challengers said the law violated.* (In all likelihood, they would first find whether there is any constitutional right implicated, and then engage in a scrutiny analysis to decide whether, despite impacting a constitutional right, the law was nevertheless permissible.)

If they say the law does not pass muster, then the NJ law is done. And other states considering such a law would likely either abandon their plans or implement variations attempting to address whatever the Sup Ct found to be impermissible about it.

If the law is found to be constitutional, then NJ has an enforceable law mandated tuna salad sandwich consumption. That doesn't mean that Georgia, where I live, immediately has such a law, or that the Federal government has such a law. Frankly, it just adds another to the long list of reasons not to live in NJ! But whether the law spreads beyond NJ is not a function of the court's ruling, but whether there is the political will in other states to adopt it.

* There are some possible variations in the procedural path, but this is the simplest version and works for purposes of this discussion.

 

[GEM]

I agree that state bans would be strengthened in the usual suspect states. Changing demographics or some horrible incident might flip states on the edge of the political spectrum. A change in composition of the Congress and Presidency might lead to a national new AWB. Since the antigun forces have absorbed the lessons of the failed AWB and work around strategies, expect a national ban to be draconian and mandate weapons turn in. No work arounds.

This is the reason that some folks are very scared of new SCOTUS cases on core gun issues. It is not unlikely that the court could go what we think is the wrong way. 4 + Kennedy can negate Gorsuch. You'd better wait until you had another positive justice or two.

Anyway, my pie in the sky dream is that the Congress pass legislation voiding state bans as the 2nd Amend. gives them the authority to protect the RKBA. My rationale would be the same as Federal laws on voting rights and discrimination that control the states. The paradox is that the antifolks will scream states rights (as they do with national reciprocity) and the states rights advocates will be pushing to take that away in this case - while they scream about states rights on voting.

I'm not counting on SCOTUS doing anything positive or Congress/President doing anything beyond bloviating that at least they are not Hillary.

 

[Tirod]

Gun owners in NY and CA are already ignoring their state laws, a decision by the Supreme Court would just include everybody else. It would be devastating to the state of the Union.

Since that isn't going to happen, it's a moot question and mostly serves to churn up posts on the internet.

 

[GRIZ22]

This seems to represent what I expect and understand.

Specific to this comment, I can think of no instance where a state declared a specific type of firearm to be legal, and instituted a buy-back or offered any other form of compensation for the loss of property. In each case that I know of (which is probably not exhaustive), the state either grandfathered prior ownership of the contraband item(s) or made it the responsibility of the property owner to dispose of the property prior to the effective date of the ban.

True, grandfathered or given time to dispose of them in the past. If there was such a ruling and there was a Democrat POTUS and Congress don't you think they would totally ban them? Didn't Hillary applaud Australia's buyback?

 

[CoalTrain49]

Nothing changes with Gorsuch. States will continue to have a right to regulate as they see fit. Why does the SC have to rule on this? Answer is they don't. Lower courts can define it and so far they are saying states can regulate it. Hell will freeze over before they knock down an AR ban.

 

[armoredman]

Specific to this comment, I can think of no instance where a state declared a specific type of firearm to be legal, and instituted a buy-back or offered any other form of compensation for the loss of property.

Wasn't that what California did with the infamous SKS on/off ban, when they registered the rifle then told those registering that they were outside of time frames? I think I remember California offering $230 or so for each retroactively banned rifle.

 

[danez71]

Wasn't that what California did with the infamous SKS on/off ban, when they registered the rifle then told those registering that they were outside of time frames? I think I remember California offering $230 or so for each retroactively banned rifle.

There were some odd nuances with that but basically, yes, you're right.

 

[Ignition Override]

GEM beat me to an issue which gun owners seem to have forgotten about, with the recent Pres. and Congressional Elections in the 'limelight'.

Most gun owners' perspectives seem to indicate that the new majority in Both the House and Senate, along with the change in the White House automatically prevents any panic or potentially knee-jerk legislation if an AR or 'AK derivative' (the media will Label a gun as such, makes "better copy") were to be involved in another terrible, unthinkable "event".

Since when did an election mean that psychos, sociopaths and terrorists will behave in a peaceful manner, and that their commonly preferred weapons will not be at the center of attention?

 

[jdc1244]

Nothing changes with Gorsuch. States will continue to have a right to regulate as they see fit. Why does the SC have to rule on this? Answer is they don't. Lower courts can define it and so far they are saying states can regulate it. Hell will freeze over before they knock down an AR ban.

True.

It also exhibits the hypocrisy of those who claim to be advocates of states' rights.

 

[GEM]

Gun owners in NY and CA are already ignoring their state laws

Is this supposed to be a good thing? If there was a ban and you kept your EBR, it has limited utility except in extreme emergencies and civilization fails.

Currently, I shoot a carbine match with my AR once a month. That goes away. So you will no matches, practice or training.
If you did use the gun in home defense (like recently happened), that the gun was banned will be used against you with a vengeance. Let's skip the 'good shot' nonsense and even if the shoot was justified, you still might face gun charges.

Anyway, the GOP and Trump will not usher in a golden age. I know votes who held their nose and voted for Trump simply because of guns. Not that they liked HRC but they thought about 3rd parties. If the GOP did bring about gun heaven, they lose that issue. Better to keep the issue on the burner.

 

[jmr40]

Back in the 1970's when gas was still 40 cents/gal. my mom was concerned about rumors that gas could go over $1/gal. She asked my dad the same thing. "What will we do if gas goes to $1/gal". My dad's answer, "We'll pay $1/gal" The same applies here. If the SCOTUS decides certain guns are illegal, we'll use the ones they decide are legal.

I'm not terribly worried about that happening, but the smart move is to do what we legally can to prevent it from happening.