Quiet week at the Court — but not necessarily a good one if you've been watching those assault weapons petitions bounce around conference after conference.

"No action isn't a ruling. A cert denial doesn't mean the Court agrees with the lower courts. It means four justices couldn't agree the case was the right vehicle."

That distinction matters more than most people realize. Every time someone sees "SCOTUS declines AR-15 ban case" and assumes the bans are safe or that the Court is signaling approval, they're misreading the situation. Four justices couldn't agree on the vehicle — not the destination.

"Repeated passes on the assault weapons challenges, after Bruen raised the bar for gun regulations, is a pattern worth watching."

Bruen changed what lower courts are supposed to do — require historical analogues for gun regulations — and some of them still haven't fully recalibrated. The circuit split on this is real, and at some point the Court has to take it up or lower courts will keep going in opposite directions. Idaho, New York, Illinois — people in each of those states are living under completely different legal realities right now.

The qualified immunity piece is worth a separate conversation. The doctrine itself isn't new, but the complaint from the dissent — that it's becoming an absolute shield — is something that cuts across political lines for a lot of gun owners who've also had their Fourth Amendment antennas up since Bruen.

For those who've been watching the assault weapons challenges work their way up — which specific case do you think is the cleanest vehicle if the Court finally decides to take one, and why?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett