"Cook County's best historical argument leans on old gunpowder-storage laws — fire-prevention rules aimed at keeping cities from burning down, not banning rifles with adjustable stocks or muzzle brakes."

That's the whole problem with "assault weapon" bans in one sentence. They've always been built on borrowed logic — cherry-picked historical analogies that don't hold up when you actually read them. A folding stock and a pistol grip have nothing to do with fire safety in 1800s Chicago.

"The most commonly owned rifle in America doesn't fit that description no matter how a state legislature describes it."

This is the Heller "dangerous and unusual" carve-out collapsing under its own weight. You can't call something unusual when it's the most common rifle platform in the country. The AR I run at the Boise 3-Gun matches is a standard piece of equipment — same as the one hanging on the wall at half the gun shops in the Treasure Valley.

"Four justices have already signaled they think these bans are unconstitutional, and two more have shown they're willing to scrutinize the kind of political hand-waving that usually props up 'assault weapon' laws."

That's a meaningful number before oral argument even starts. This isn't a close call from a legal standpoint — Bruen already shifted the burden onto the states, and Connecticut and Cook County are showing up with fire ordinances.

If this ruling goes the way the text and precedent point, do you own an AR platform — and has living in Idaho versus a ban state ever actually affected what you bought or how you set it up?

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