Utterly massive rulings have been handed down by the SCOTUS. But they just keep coming.
As Justice Clarence Thomas has made a wild decision about the Bill of Rights with serious consequences.
The Supreme Court of the United States just got done with a case that provided Donald Trump with partial immunity from prosecution for official acts that were carried out to fulfill the role of the President of the United States. This was a fairly moderate decision that had legal precedence going back decades ago to the 1960s and 1970s.
Of course, naturally, the Left collectively lost their marbles. So much so, they made sure to march their man Joe Biden in front of a camera to once again lecture the American people about how Donald Trump is a threat to democracy and that this ruling somehow makes him a king among peasants (spoiler: it doesn’t).
That was a pretty hefty decision, no doubt. But another consequential one has been handed down that’s going to be lost in the sauce, so to speak, because of all the attention being put on Donald Trump and Joe Biden lately. The justices have handed down a decision with consequences for the Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Semiautomatic Firearms Ban, Justice Clarence Thomas Issues Statement
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to take up a significant case involving a ban on certain semiautomatic firearms. This decision came with a notable statement from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who expressed his views on the matter despite not joining Associate Justice Samuel Alito in advocating for the court to hear the cases immediately.
The case, brought forward by several pro-Second Amendment organizations including Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), challenged legislation that banned multiple semiautomatic guns in January 2023. Justice Thomas, while acknowledging the court’s reluctance to address cases in an interlocutory posture, emphasized the need for the court to eventually consider the significant issues presented by these petitions once the cases reach a final judgment.
“This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture,” Thomas wrote. “But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”
Thomas referenced the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the court explained that the Second Amendment’s protection extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the time of the founding. He noted that while the court has stated that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, this guidance is insufficient for comprehensively evaluating restrictions on types of weapons. Essential questions such as what makes a weapon “bearable,” “dangerous,” or “unusual” remain unresolved.
The term “assault weapons,” frequently used by gun-control advocates, is often employed to garner support for banning certain semiautomatic firearms that resemble fully-automatic weapons in appearance. According to a July 2022 release by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” including the AR-15, are in circulation.
FBI data from the Uniform Crime Report Data Explorer showed that rifles of any type were used in 489 homicides in 2022. In comparison, knives were used in 1,216 k*llings, unknown weapons in 653 homicides, and personal weapons such as hands, fists, and feet in 593 k*llings.
Justice Thomas criticized the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation, which he described as a “contrived ‘non-militaristic’ limitation” on the arms protected by the Second Amendment, arguing that it lacks foundation in both text and history. “In my view, Illinois’ ban is ‘highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes,’” Thomas wrote. He found it difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.
“If the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment,” Thomas added. He stressed that the court must not permit the Seventh Circuit to reduce the Second Amendment to a second-class right.
Justice Thomas cites Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Cargill: https://t.co/VfL7pUr74i pic.twitter.com/Gual8K4AdI
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 2, 2024
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) vowed to continue its legal battle against the ban. NAGR President Dudley Brown stated, “Justice Thomas just told the nation that the 7th Circuit got it wrong when it ruled that AR-15s – the most commonly owned rifle in America – is not a gun at all under the Second Amendment. And yet, the entire Court – with the exception of Justice Alito – agreed to let that decision stand. Apparently, a right delayed is NOT a right denied for the Supreme Court. They better get used to hearing from us, because we will keep bringing them ‘assault weapons’ ban cases until they get it right.”
War On Second Amendment Rights
There’s an argument to be made that the Supreme Court lacked the judicial precedence to override the rights of the state of Illinois to pass legislation regulating firearms within the context of federal constitutional law. However, that’s the crux of it all.
The federal government has been on the forefront of muddying the waters of what constitutes as “infringement” on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Illinois, theoretically, wouldn’t be allowed to ban specific semiautomatic weapons as they have were it not for the obvious attempts to demonize firearms as much as possible.
All that being said, it’s not obvious that the Supreme Court will absolutely end up maintaining the legality of the Illinois law to target specific firearms with a ban for vague and arbitrary reasons. As Thomas noted, the case may yet find its way back to the Supreme Court and the respected justice has made no signal about whether he’d support the law or vote to eventually strike it down.
The Conservative Column will keep you updated on any major Supreme Court news.
