Cautionary note as to Spamburger's "Assault Weapons Ban"

[user]

At the time of writing, the prohibition against enforcement of the AWB has been extended through December 31, 2026. But what one should keep in mind is that a temporary injunction against enforcement is not a final order finding the law invalid. It may be that the Court, some time next January, will find that the law is invalid and thus the injunction will become permanent, but that hasn't happened yet. The statute is presumptively valid unless and until the Court says it ain't.

Here's the gotcha: if, and I say, if the Court should determine in January that the injunction should be dissolved, that means that it was good law from and after July 1, 2026. There's a twelve-month statute of limitations on misdemeanors, so, in the absence of the injunction against enforcement, the Commonwealth could file a criminal complaint for violations that occurred while the injunction was in place, i.e., from and after July 1, 2026, anytime up to July 1, 2027.

An injunction against enforcement is not the same as a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[color of law]

Virginia's law will be found unconstitutional. See Wolford v. Lopez.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

That analysis, we held, involves two steps. First, a court must determine whether the law before it clashes with the “plain text” of the Amendment’s language. Id., at 24. This inquiry entails three subsidiary questions. First, does the law apply to “the people”—which is to say, to “all members of the political community”? Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. Second, does it concern any form of “Arms,” i.e., any weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes? See id., at 584. Third, does the law place any restrictions on either the “keep[ing]” (i.e., possession) or the “bear[ing]” (i.e., carrying) of arms? See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 32–33.

If a challenged law falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, it is presumptively unconstitutional, id., at 24—which means that it may violate the preexisting right that the Amendment codified.

 

[user]

I share your views as to the probable outcome. These cases have been filed in state courts applying Virginia law, citing federal, but without relying on it. So, after they get out of the Va. Sup. Ct., there's a chance, however slight, that the U.S. Sup. Ct. will deny cert. on the basis of the fact that the state court is deciding matters of state law exclusively. I try to pre-emptively eliminate risk even as to remote contingencies, especially when it's easy to do so.

I do not have much confidence in our judiciary; I've met too many judges who are too under-educated in the law and procedure, or who are blatantly intellectually dishonest. I've met some great ones, but I can count those on one hand.

 

[color of law]

What irritates me is when challenging state laws that are actually a violation of federal law, constitutionally speaking, the supremacy clause is not shoved down the state courts throat. Supreme Court case Cooper v. Aaron 358 US 1 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it."

Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them."

I could go on and on, but activist judges is a big problem state wise and federal wise.

 

[color of law]

Well, here you go!!!!
DOJ suing Virginia.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1450551/dl?inline

 

[Law abider]

Doesn't Bruen come into play? And how many times do we have to go to courts to have them decide if ARs are included in the thinking of the framers when they wrote the second amendment. Courts do not always and much less frequently so interpret the constitution as it was intended. Besides they're out of control. Their opinions are becoming law. It's gotten so convoluted that strapping a gun and going about has become criminal!

 

[color of law]

Doesn't Bruen come into play? And how many times do we have to go to courts to have them decide if ARs are included in the thinking of the framers when they wrote the second amendment. Courts do not always and much less frequently so interpret the constitution as it was intended. Besides they're out of control. Their opinions are becoming law. It's gotten so convoluted that strapping a gun and going about has become criminal!

I'm not sure what courts you are refering - state courts, federal district or appalant courts? The Supreme Court has taken on two AR-15 cases for next term. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.