Pam Bondi’s DOJ Weighs Supreme Court Move in Range 2A Case ~ VIDEO

The Supreme Court is currently considering other major Second Amendment cases, including challenges to assault weapon bans (Bianchi v. Brown out of Maryland) which is a major concern on 2nd Amendment rights.

The major point of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) potentially hearing Bianchi v. Brown out of Maryland centers on whether Maryland's ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, often labeled as "assault weapons" (such as the AR-15), violates the Second Amendment. This case challenges the constitutionality of the Maryland Firearms Safety Act of 2013, which prohibits the sale and possession of specific military-style firearms. The plaintiffs, including individual Maryland residents, gun rights organizations, and a firearms dealer, argue that these commonly used firearms are protected under the Second Amendment for self-defense, especially following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Bruen ruling established a new standard for evaluating gun laws, requiring that restrictions be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and recognizing a broader right to bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

After Bruen, SCOTUS vacated an earlier Fourth Circuit decision upholding Maryland's ban (when the case was known as Bianchi v. Frosh) and remanded it for reconsideration under the new standard. The Fourth Circuit, in its 2024 Bianchi v. Brown ruling, upheld the ban again, asserting that the regulated firearms are military-style weapons designed for combat, not self-defense, and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. This sets up a key issue for SCOTUS: whether such firearms are "in common use" for lawful purposes like self-defense, and if so, whether Maryland's ban aligns with historical traditions of firearm regulation. The case could clarify the scope of Second Amendment protections for modern semi-automatic rifles and resolve ongoing debates about state-level "assault weapon" bans in light of Bruen.

It's another hit job to eliminate or reduce the meaning of the 2A in our constitution.

I'm really torn on this. While I agree I principle with felons losing their ability to own firearms, I also understand that those convicted of non-violent crimes would see themselves as being able to possess a firearm.

I'll say this, I worked around convicted felons for almost 21 years, all of them thought they should have all their rights restored after their sentence was up.

Interesting. I would think this would involve a lot of research and decision-making on each and every felony and misdemeanors on the books by Congress. Where should the line be drawn? Any non-violent crime? Like smoking a joint? Embezzlement? Illegally entering the US?
t would be a very long list.