In the form of comments U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made last week as she challenged the court’s majority decision to put out an ATF law banning bump shares, a group of cannon rights activists may have found doubtful support for their cases.
Leading the dissenting minority in the 6- 3 event of , Garland v. Cargill , on June 14, Sotomayor , wrote , about the 2017 Las Vegas mass killing, in which national investigators closed down their research after concluding a second shooting suspect used several firearms equipped with knock stocks to fire more than 1, 000 rounds into a group in about 10 minutes. Sotomayor, who described the attack, claimed that the Las Vegas shooter carried out the attack” by affixing bump stocks to commonly used, semiautomatic rifles.”
While Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion argued against loosening firearms restrictions, attorney Daniel Schmutter argued in a , letter , to U. S. District Judge Peter Sheridan that Sotomayor’s remarks could actually bolster the legality of semiautomatic rifles like the AR- 15- style rifles the 2017 Las Vegas shooting suspect allegedly used. The majority held in the 2008 U. S. Supreme Court case of , D. C. v. Heller , that the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution specifically upholds the rights of individuals to possess and carry firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.
Schmutter, writing on behalf of plaintiffs in three separate federal cases challenging New Jersey’s state firearms laws noted the similarity between Sotomayor’s usage of” commonly available” to describe semiautomatic rifles, and the Heller decision’s” common use” phrasing. While lawmakers and attorneys have since debated whether or not all firearms access falls under the” common use” phrasing, Schmutter cited Sotomayor’s statements as a strong indication that many semi-automatic weapons would be protected by the Second Amendment.
” This stunning admission by a member of the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller… McDonald v. Chicago,… and New York State Rifle &, Pistol Association v. Bruen… is telling. Even a Supreme Court member who opposes the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms acknowledges the unavoidable fact that semi-automatic weapons, the very weapons that are prohibited by the laws in dispute in the cases before this court, are in common use, Schmutter wrote. ” As already argued extensively in Plaintiffs ‘ summary judgment papers, because the subject semi- automatic arms are in common use, they cannot be banned, and the laws being challenged are unconstitutional”.
The plaintiffs in these three separate lawsuits are suing New Jersey to overturn its so-called “assault weapons ban” laws, which entail restrictions on the ownership of various semi-automatic firearms models.
Following Sotomayor’s recent dissention in the Cargill decision, Deputy New Jersey Attorney General Christopher Ioannou responded on Wednesday, seeking to end the” common use” arguments. Ioannou , argued , firstly, that while , Garland v. Cargill , concerned gun regulations, it was not a Second Amendment case, but rather a case concerning whether the ATF exceeded its rulemaking authority.
” Second, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in no way suggests that’ common availability’ is an appropriate test for Second Amendment protection—let alone a dispositive one. Therefore, it has no bearing on the arguments made by the State and numerous appellate courts to refute this specific test,” Ioannou continued.
The current lawsuits challenging New Jersey’s gun laws will be affected by these fresh arguments surrounding Sotomayor’s dissention.
This article was originally , published , by , FreeBase News , and is reprinted with permission.
