This may have flown under the radar, or it may strike one as stating the obvious. What bears repeating though, is that any open society guaranteeing freedom of expression and movement depends absolutely on mutual trust. When that trust is damaged by individuals, we necessarily restrict their freedoms to restore it to society at large.

Trust in our institutions isn't necessary; skepticism is always healthy. But the current race to bottom in how we treat one another, the outright rejection of counterpoint across the board is clearly heading towards a reckoning.

It doesn't have to be this way. In a recent July 4th episode, HRV quotes Samuel Gompers (labor movement leader in 1914) (at 10:10; better contextually from 5:30), to declare to his socialist cross-examiner:

the working people will never stop in their efforts to obtain a better life for themselves and their wives and for their children and for humanity. You have an end; we do not.

Gompers was referring to the difference in attitude that puts grand ideals as the goals, leading to some well-imagined end utopia. The brilliance of US civic culture was that it imagined no such end: it simply strove to be better, and in so doing accepted all differences of opinion in order to get to that next step.

If we think some kind of fight needs to be waged and "won", in order for any progress to be made, we will never succeed. Keeping our eyes fixed on some image we have of the future means we're not paying attention to the reality of right now. Deciding our neighbors are enemies to tear down instead of rivals to out-perform makes us no better than the warring, bloodthirsty tribes we like to mock as backwards, immoral, bigoted, supremacist, or genocidal.

All it takes is to trust that others want the best for themselves and for others, even if those "others" are just their family and friends. That's not an excuse to ruin them, no matter what you think of their values, it's at most a reason to do better, to be better, to show them how it's done— and if your way is better, it will win out. Trust in that.

The only way to restore trust in our institutions is to be trustworthy, not change the rules.

It's the people that claim the game is rigged that deserve to be trusted the least.

My two cents.

This article covers Sen. Susan Collins’ response to the fatal ICE shooting of Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine. Collins called for DHS to halt “non-urgent vehicle stops” while investigations continue, and joined the rest of Maine’s congressional delegation in requesting an independent Inspector General investigation. She also criticized the lack of body cameras while maintaining that ICE itself should not be abolished. The shooting has prompted protests, renewed scrutiny of ICE tactics, and reports that the agency has temporarily suspended most vehicle stops pending additional review and training.

Starter questions:

• Did Sen. Collins strike an appropriate balance by calling for a temporary halt to non-urgent vehicle stops while defending ICE’s broader mission, or should elected officials take a stronger position in either direction?
• What do you think of DHS stopping non urgent traffic stops? What reforms would improve public confidence in immigration enforcement while allowing the government to carry out lawful removals?
• Should body-worn cameras be mandatory for all ICE enforcement operations, and should evidence obtained without them face additional scrutiny?

A recent National Review piece examines the debate over exempting seniors from property taxes. The argument centers on fiscal and distributional trade-offs: when a broad class of property owners is removed from the tax base, local governments either reduce services or shift the burden to remaining taxpayers with younger households already facing affordability pressures. The piece also notes that because today's senior cohort holds more accumulated household wealth on average than younger generations, blanket age-based exemptions may be poorly targeted. The author suggests means-tested alternatives, such as income-based deferral programs, as a more precise way to protect seniors who genuinely need relief without creating broader fiscal distortions.

My Take: I find it a bit insane that this seems to be gaining traction across both parties. It's pretty rare that you see Ron DeSantis and Abdul El-Sayed arguing for similar policy, and me personally agreeing with the National Review. This is one of those intra-generational splits in policy, and seems to be one of the last vestiges of Baby Boomers attempting to flex their political power.

Open question: Should we be pursuing any means tested alternatives to our current property tax structure? Are means-tested deferral programs a realistic alternative, and are there municipalities that have implemented them effectively?

Intro

The Supreme Court has granted cert in what is likely to be the next landmark Second Amendment case they hear. The question presented:

Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

That’s right. SCOTUS will finally consider the legality of “assault weapons” bans. This comes about from two separate cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which have been consolidated for the purposes of briefings and oral arguments. Viramontes v. Cook County concerns an ordinance in Cook County, Illinois that restricts the sale and possession of “assault weapons”. Grant v. Higgins concerns a similar law in Connecticut.

This all comes hot on the heels of a number of other significant pro-2A rulings in recent years:

• NYSRPA v. Bruen effectively ruled that the possession of pistols in public is a constitutional right.
• United States v. Hemani overturned a federal ban on “unlawful users” of marijuana from possessing firearms.
• Wolford v. Lopez declared that concealed carry holders do not need a publicly-facing private property owner’s explicit permission to bring a firearm onto the property.

Given that trend, it is highly likely that we will see yet another pro-2A ruling in this case as well. But the devil is always in the details, and SCOTUS’ rationale often leaves much to be desired. So with that in mind, I wanted to take some time and walk through what the Court may consider as they navigate some of the challenges that this case uniquely presents.

The Goal

As with all Supreme Court opinions, there are two primary goals: 1) articulate a clear answer to the question presented, and 2) justify that opinion with legal reasoning that the lower courts can consistently apply in future cases. 1 is easy. 2 is often quite difficult.

So what would I do if I were in SCOTUS’ robes? I would suggest that we start with definitions. Similar to other recent 2A cases like Garland v. Cargill, technical definitions may play a significant role in both making a ruling as well as crafting a way to consistently apply that ruling. In this case, we will at the very least need to clearly define what “similar semiautomatic rifles” covers.

Once we have a definition, it will be easier to apply the relevant case law to each part of that definition and determine if they are consistent with the Constitution. To that end, there are several tests that the Court has used in the past that can inform our analysis. We can consider which ones may be useful (Heller), and which ones we may want to avoid (Bruen*).

Finally, we can consider what may not be implicated by this case. While I think it is possible that a well-crafted opinion can resolve many of the open 2A questions within the Court, there are just as many topics that will likely remain open to interpretation.

So with all that said, let’s jump into this.

Definitions

The question presented to the Court concerns the “AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles”. I am less concerned with how we define “AR-15”, because that is both a straightforward effort and a small percentage of what could be affected by this case. Our efforts are better served defining “similar semiautomatic rifles”, as it removes any ambiguity in what this ruling could affect.

Starting with “rifle”, 18 U.S.C. § 921 states that a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed… to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger”. Notably, there is also a definition for “short-barreled rifle”, which is a subset of rifles with “one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length” or “an overall length of less than twenty-six inches”. While I think it is possible that this ruling could include short-barreled rifles, we can assume that any opinion will likely exclude them and focus on rifles with barrels over 16” and lengths over 26”.

Next up, we have the definition of “semiautomatic rifle”, which 18 U.S.C. § 921 states is “any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge”. Notably, this excludes fully automatic fire and burst fire, which would be considered a machinegun.

Last up, we have what the court may consider to be “similar” to the AR-15. And here is where definitions get ambiguous. The underlying state laws that led to this case are both “assault weapons” bans, so we can best assume that these are the kinds of “similar” semiautomatic rifles that the Court wishes to discuss. Unfortunately, there is no standard definition for an “assault weapon”, but it likely includes all semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that use detachable magazines and contain one or more of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock a pistol grip a vertical forward grip a threaded barrel a brake, compensator, or flash hider a barrel shroud a bayonet mount

This mostly aligns to the ATF definition. It’s possible that we will also have to consider laws that define rifles under 30” in length as an “assault weapon” (such as in CT).

DC v. Heller

With the definitions out of the way, how does existing case law inform a potential answer to the question before the Court? Let’s first consider Heller:

The sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons”... The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

So we have a few key phrases here, starting with “in common use”. While the Supreme Court provides little input on precisely how to determine whether a firearm is “in common use”, some lower courts have considered: total number of firearms, percentage of total firearms, and number of jurisdictions where owned. In all categories though, semi-automatic rifles demonstrate strong support. Surveys suggest that 40% of all rifles are semi-automatic, with roughly half of those considered to be “military style” rather than “hunting”. In total, there are around 30 million “modern sporting rifles” like the AR-15 in the US, with their sale or ownership allowed in ~80% of states.

As for their use for “lawful purposes”, we can look to 15 U.S. Code § 7901 for a clean definition: “...firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.” AR-15s (or similar) are used for all 4 of those purposes, although it remains to be seen how much evidence of this the Court may be looking for.

NYSRPA v. Bruen

So what about Bruen? The Court asks whether a restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”. I continue to maintain that this is a highly subjective and unworkable test that can be molded to support drastically different conclusions by the Court. There's quite literally no point in speculating here. Because of that, I will choose to ignore it completely and consider good ole’ fashioned Strict Scrutiny. The Second Amendment secures a fundamental right after all. In my opinion, strict scrutiny should apply.

The strict scrutiny test is fairly straightforward and asks 3 main questions: Is the law or regulation necessary to achieve a compelling state interest? Is the law or regulation narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest? Does the law or regulation use the least restrictive means for achieving that interest?

Addressing the first question, I think it’s a fair conclusion that the government has a compelling interest in improving public safety by: reducing firearm deaths, reducing firearm-related violence, and/or reducing mass shootings.

But the state’s arguments likely fall apart as soon as we consider the remaining two questions. Assault weapons bans are likely neither “narrowly tailored” nor “least restrictive” for one primary reason: they don’t actually work. The law must be effective to pass strict scrutiny, which states will struggle to justify. “Assault weapons” bans do not restrict scores of magazine-fed, center-fire rifles that lack any specific banned features. Unless the states can effectively argue that these cosmetic accessories are solely responsible for making a rifle “dangerous and unusual”, then their brief is dead on arrival. The core action and effectiveness of the rifle has not changed simply by changing or adding a grip. States would almost be better off arguing for a ban on all semi-automatic rifles.

Outside of a technical analysis of the rifles features and “dangerousness”, the evidence around the effectiveness of an “assault weapons” ban is at best inconclusive. When the data is available, the DoJ estimates suggest that handguns are used in crimes 10x more often than rifles. Mass shootings accounted for just 3% of all non-suicide firearms deaths in 2025, and 75% of those “mass shootings” resulted in the death 1 or fewer people. And of course, “assault weapons” bans do nothing to reduce the >50% of firearm deaths due to suicide.

Out of Scope

As I alluded to at the beginning of this far-too-long analysis, there is much that may not be implicated by any opinion in this case. First, it is unclear if the topic of “high capacity magazines” will be addressed. Many “assault weapons” bans include language for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, or rifles that can accept such magazines. While these are certainly in common use (and have been for over a century), that may be too many steps removed from the core question before the Court.

Similarly, many “assault weapons” bans include certain shotguns, pistols, and “other” firearms. While any test the Court comes up with could reasonably apply to all firearms, they don’t precisely fall into the “semiautomatic rifle” category presented in the question to the Court. They also introduce several new feature restrictions like overall weight limits exclusive to some pistol-based bans. A ruling that’s narrowly tailored to rifles could keep the door wide open for non-rifle bans. Considering that many of the lower court proceedings in Grant v. Higgins dealt extensively with so-called “other” firearms, this would be pretty significant.

One final unlikely category of arms are anything that falls under the National Firearms Act. Among other things, the NFA places federal restrictions on machineguns, short-barreled rifles, and suppressors. While some of these items are legal to own federally, many states ban them explicitly. Once again, a narrow ruling would likely not address these kinds of bans.

Alternative Restrictions

So let’s pretend for a minute that the Supreme Court rules as expected and declares AR-15s (and similar semiautomatic rifles) protected by the Second Amendment. What new fuckery can the states still consider? The most likely course of action would be procedural restrictions on ownership. Licensing requirements for ownership or purchase, qualification testing similar to some carry permits, more intrusive background checks… Many of these exist already in some capacity and have not been overturned by the Courts.

Alternatively, states could require specific “safety” technology to be adopted, such as microstamping. No, that technology is not currently viable, but that hasn’t stopped several states from considering or passing laws that mandate it. California’s handgun roster is another avenue that states could pursue in the name of “safety” while effectively banning certain firearms from being sold. Much of this has yet to be formally challenged in the Courts.

As a final option, states could consider cartridge-based bans. Some already ban 50-caliber rifles, so it’s possible that other, smaller caliber bans could be tested as an alternative. A muzzle energy limitation would be another way to introduce this, although either option may run afoul of certain caliber and energy minimums in hunting regulations.

Final Thoughts

This is, ultimately, reckless speculation on my part in a case that doesn’t even have official briefs yet. Oral arguments won’t happen for several months at the earliest, and we likely won’t have an opinion until June of next year. So get comfy… a lot can happen between now and then.

Trump fired all the (remaining) members of the Election Assistance Commission, leaving the agency unable to act. According the article:

The EAC was created by Congress after the 2000 election to help states improve election administration without federalizing elections.Its role is mostly supportive: distributing federal election funds, maintaining the national mail voter registration form, testing and certifying voting systems, and offering best practices and guidance to state and local election officials.

Trump cannot simply install replacement EAC commissioners on his own. Commissioners must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and no more than two can come from the same party.

Republicans have a majority in the Senate, although it's a little unlcear whether they would support Trump picks without question... a little.

Apparently, the Supreme Court ruled that the President can remove heads of agencies that are independent, yet confusingly also ruled that this isn't always true (in the case of the federal reserve).

How much should we read into this, do you think this is a natural progression in Trump's plan to control the next election, or an escalation?

lastly, do you think Republicans will end up supporting or pushing against this (assuming he attempts to control the commission) given the popularity polls leading up to the midterms?

some deeper insight into the above two SC rulings would also be good.