politics

Not impossible with any other Supreme Court, but this one is vastly different from the one that ruled during the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

Since then, ruling after ruling, the court has re-enforced and expanded gun rights. It's going to get ugly when they hear the AWB and high capacity bans out of California.

Here's a primer on how things have changed, I'll need to save this because it will come up again:

D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

You can't ban an entire class of weapon, in this case handguns. But that would apply to ANY class, such as banning rifles, shotguns, and, yes, semi-automatic rifles.

McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"

Needed re-stating because D.C. is a unique legal entity and not a state. McDonald exists to say "Yes, states too."

Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

This is actually my favorite one of these because it goes in an unusual direction. Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.

MA charged her saying that tasers didn't exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.

Enter the court:

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don't have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it's yours.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - 2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

This is the recent ruling that has everyone in a tizzy. First, because for concealed carry, it converted New York from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state:

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[26]

And second, it sets a new standard by which all gun laws will now be measured:

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

No no, you see, we can't do that because of -insert bullshit here-

they'll argue their critics don't understand firearms, or the difference between semi and full auto, or that AR describes armalite rifle not assault rifle... because they have no response to the actual issue - we're a country of 330 million that possesses 400 million + firearms. Too many people with ready access to firearms is the problem, but they can't address that so they'll change the subject to apocrypha.

I mean, banning military-style guns is a ban though.

Realistically we need regulation on who can own guns, not what guns they can own.

Oh, absolutely agreed, but keep in mind that Heller was in 2008 and the court has only gotten MORE conservative since then, not less.

Here's a fun stat:

Looking just at the Supreme Court in my lifetime (have to start somewhere!), we have had 8 Republican Presidential terms and 6 Democratic ones. Not a dramatic difference, right? Now look at the Justices placed on the court:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

Nixon - 3
Nixon/Ford - 1
Reagan - 1
Reagan - 2
Bush Sr. - 2
Bush Jr. - 0
Bush Jr. - 2
Trump - 3

Carter - 0
Clinton - 2
Clinton - 0
Obama - 2
Obama - 0*
Biden - 1

54 years, 14 Republican Justices to 5 Democratic ones.

Unfortunately this argument is another can of worms with the hardliners, but it also highlights their hypocrisy.

It goes something like this:

Me, a moderate: "You always conveniently leave out the 'well regulated' part when you use the 2A as a shield that prevents all gun regulation"

Hardliner: "Well actually the phrase 'well-regulated' meant something different at the time it was written, and it was not intended to refer to restrictions. Generally, well regulated meant "in good working order" so we interpret that as referring to the militia itself being functional, and not that restrictions would be placed on individual gun owners."

So now you can start to see the hypocrisy with these constitutional literalists, because they insist that the text should be strictly interpreted based on what it meant at the time... but at the time, the only "arms" were single shot muskets that weren't accurate at all. So they are trying to burn the candle at both ends by at the same time applying a modern and historical interpretation of the text. Clearly the founders did not anticipate modern weapons.

The whole idea that the 2A precludes ALL restrictions is bullshit. Should individuals be able to own nuclear warheads? Obviously not. I'm personally really tired of people who (instead of engaging in a rational argument about which restrictions are appropriate) just use the 2A as a shield so that they don't have to justify their views.

They were found Constitutional before Heller in 2008... that's the problem. The court has only veered harder right since then.

California's AWB and magazine size restrictions are being challenged, I don't expect them to survive. The magazine limit has already been struck down by lower courts, I don't see the current Supremes being more favorable to it.

Kind of pointless to pick a single particular time and argue that something would or would not have stopped it without any actual data.

Agreed, but I'm not the one citing it as an example of why the state needed an open carry ban. Fact of the matter is it was a driveby shooting, not a case of someone open carrying shooting.

If guns were less prevalent and harder to get would it cause there to be less gun fatalities?

Sure, but that can't happen because of the 2nd amendment. It's a non-starter.

If you are harder on people committing gun crimes would there be less gun fatalities?

Not really, no. Mass shootings end in either suicide, life in prison, or the death penalty. Hasn't stopped them.

If it were illegal to carry large amounts of amnition around with you, would there be less gun fatalities?

Nope, because there's no danger in carrying ammo.

If it were illegal to carry around lots of weapons without being in a well-regulated militia, hence where police or other people would see you and go in that person's probably up to no good, would that cause there to be less gun fidelities?

That's not what the founders meant by "well regulated militia".

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

"Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription.15"

If some kid rolls up and does a school shooting do we hold their families responsible?

In the case of the Crumbleys? Yes.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-michigan-high-school-shooter-ethan-crumbley-trial/story?id=98072544

I does actually. What drives people to hoard things when they see headlines that an item is in limited supply? See the similarity? FOMO for the American consumer is a heluva drug.