"Once what you want to do is shown to come within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional."

That's the Heller/Bruen two-step working the way it was designed to work. Government has to prove historical tradition — not just wave at public safety. Two courts this week said the government couldn't clear that bar on switchblades and body armor. Same test, same standard, same problem for the other side in Viramontes.

"However the Court rules on AR-15s will effectively steer how lower courts treat magazines, suppressors, automatic knives, and body armor going forward."

This is why Viramontes matters beyond just the rifle question. If the Court draws a clean "common use" line and AR-15s fall inside it, you're looking at a decision that ripples through every subsequent case on the list — suppressors included. That's a long time coming for a lot of people in this state.

"The world evolves, but the core fundamental rights never change."

The First Amendment comparison is the strongest argument gun-rights lawyers have right now. Courts already extended speech protections to platforms that didn't exist in 1791. The Seventh Circuit's position that AR-15s are functionally comparable to machine guns has always been a stretch — and that's the reasoning the Supreme Court is about to examine directly.

If the Court rules AR-15s are protected arms under common use, what's the one item on the current restricted list you think sees a legal challenge first?

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