Across the country, Democrats are moving to ban popular semiautomatic weapons as well as magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition. That includes, most recently, Virginia, which has careened to the left after the election of Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D). However, the most chilling such legislation may be in Minnesota, where state Sen. Matt Klein has introduced SF 4290. The law not only bans semiautomatic rifles and magazines with more than ten bullets, but also allows citizens to keep prior purchased weapons only if they agree to allow the police to enter their homes to inspect storage and safety conditions.
The Supreme Court has thus far dodged review of these bans. However, while courts have upheld the bans in places like Illinois, some of us believe that banning weapons like the AR-15 is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans.
However, what makes the Minnesota law so distinctive is the provision on home inspections. The law states that, in addition to securing state permission or certification for the possession of existing weapons, owners must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the
device to ensure compliance with this subdivision.”
So new sales of these models would be banned, while existing weapons could only be retained if owners agree to home inspections. It is part of an overall assault on gun rights not just to limit models but to add layers of regulation for those who wish to retain their weapons.
These laws will, hopefully, compel the Court to accept review of these laws and bring greater clarity on the scope of this individual right.
So new sales of these models would be banned, while existing weapons could only be retained if owners agree to home inspections.
So you can keep your own property that you paid for, but only by relinquishing your Fourth Amendment right to privacy by letting agents of the state into your home. And they’re the one’s saying “No Kings”?
So what’s not to understand? As for the 4th, guess what, so what? Put them in a gun safe outdoors in a shed or an underground vault outside the house. Problem solved.
Hey, you want to keep guns, get use to it. Gun owners are the deadliest people there are.
Bless your heart. You are going to be OK.
As for the 4th, guess what, so what?
That’s the deepest, most scholarly constitutional analysis I’ve ever seen. You may be missing an exciting career as a law professor – or more likely a thug enforcer for a fascist state. It’s little wonder you post your garbage anonymously.
ATS – search and seizure law (4th amendment) is the most well developed area of law in the US.
It does not matter whether the state is seeking to enter your home to check your guns or to search for illegal drugs, the state needs a warrant, or one of a specific set of emergencies and exigent circumstances defined over 250 years of law.
Further, the state has no right at all to enter your home EXCEPT for probable cause that they will find evidence of a crime.
Finally – if the state can make you jump up and down 3 times and stand on your head to preserve a right, then you do not have that right.
The burden is ALWAYS on the state to demonstrate that the infringement on a right is absolutely necescary AND that they are doing so in the lest infringing possible way.
Those criteria are the defining characteristics of an individual right – something that it is extremely difficult for govenrment to infringe on – when GOVERNMENT must demonstrate the absolutely necessity, and where GOVERNMENT must demonstrate that it has chosen the least infringing means of infringing.
Refuse to comply.
Einstein eh?
You don’t even bother to create the 2A Militia as REQUIRED that would prevent all of this. You instead, rely on the NRA (Noboby Reads Ammendments) and look how they failed you.
Where, do tell, Chief Justice Marshall, is the REQUIREMENT for a 2A Militia?
I bet Iranians and Brits are wishing they had guns now, with or without a militia.
But they don’t. Only the monsters do.
Not that the 2nd Amendment makes this a requirement, but the thing you ask for already exists:
Militia of the US as Codified: 10 USC 246: Militia: composition and classes
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section246&num=0&edition=prelim
Because the 2nd Amendment does not require a militia. This is not about the NRA – which you clearly have not been paying attion – is impotent and a shadow of its former self. It has been destroyed by corruption and scandal.
Those of you on the left were under the delusion that it was the power of the NRA that was why you could not pass egregious gun laws.
But the NRA is all but pointless today, and your efforts to pass stupid gun laws are meeting more Opposition than ever.
The NRA reflected the views of real people – not the other way arround.
People have left the NRA because of its scandals.
They have NOT changed their mind at all about the 2nd amendment.
Pete Hegseth spent $100,000 on a piano, $2 million on Alaskan King Crab, $7 million on lobster tail, $15 million on steak, $120,000 on ice cream machines, and $12,000 on fruit basket stands… JUST IN SEPTEMBER!
Lie
Unconstitutional legislation in Minnesota . . . Pete Hegseth’s shopping list. Yeah, I see the connection (eye roll).
So what?
Hey Ya-Know – this is the same thing We oughta to do with the U.S. Congress.
After 250 years of B.S. it’s time to eject the hereditary nobles. You know them (they have their Daddy’s last name).
Lords a-leaving: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years
LONDON (AP) — Centuries of British political tradition will end within weeks after Parliament voted to remove hereditary aristocrats from the unelected House of Lords.
By: Jill Lawless – AP ~ March 11, 2026
https://apnews.com/article/uk-house-of-lords-hereditary-peers-expelled-535df8781dd01e8970acda1dca99d3d4
A.K.A.: -TERM LIMITS- for all three Branches of the U.S. Government.
implied in the new requirement is also a Statewide semi-auto rifle registry, potentially as a step toward confiscation.
The original intent of the Founding Fathers – which “Originalists” claim to support – is that the U.S. Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights were designed to RESTRAIN government authority.
These are authorities no government official has under the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] – not the president, not Congress and not the courts.
Local, state and federal laws were supposed to circumscribe the U.S. Constitution.
The role of the Judicial Branch including the U.S. Supreme Court was to interpret the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its subordinate local, state and federal laws. If the government action violated that letter & spirit, the only legal resolution was a constitutiinal-amendment. If the U.S. Constitution was fundamentally flawed there was a correction system called the “constitutional-amendment” process.
Starting in the 20th Century, both Republicans and Democrats both supported a foreign concept of government – the flawed notion that the “ends justify unconstitutional means”. The U.S. Constitution is a wartime charter, designed during wartime and designed to be followed during wartime and all times.
If America accepts that the U.S. Constitution is optional-when-convenient you have no 2nd Amendment rights or any rights at all. It’s a RESTRAINT on government authority even when it’s inconvenient for the bureaucrats!
Local, state and federal laws were supposed to circumscribe the U.S. Constitution
True as to federal laws, but not state and local laws, which the US Constitution is designed to circumscribe to the extent they conflict (see Supremacy Clause).
If the government action violated that letter & spirit, the only legal resolution was a constitutiinal-amendment.
Under the concept of judicial review, established in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary’s “province and duty” is to say what the law is, including whether the law is invalid due to violating the US Constitution. Also, your position doesn’t really make sense. If the government’s actions violate the constitution, there is no need for amendments, just enforcement – and your position would render any amendments meaningless because the government could violate those amendments, with the people’s sole recourse being further (meaningless) amendments.
The U.S. Constitution is a wartime charter?
What does that mean? Plus, it was drafted four years after the Revolutionary War was over, i.e., in peacetime.
Actually, I misread the first quote. The US Constitution limits (circumscribes) the acts of Congress, not the other way around.
So can we assume all your other quotes here are screw-ups?
That kind of ultra-witty comeback is so dang clever, your IQ must be over 250! (eye-roll)
Yes. You may.
Restrain? Got facts for that lie?
We’re only one election away from doing away with any restraint on the federal government.
The law should be rewritten to ban Democrats from office who are gun haters. And if they are gun haters for many years, then their heads should be inspected via surgery to make sure there are no squirrel cages operating their minds.
I’m pretty sure far fewer Democrats will run for office.
If you don’t like it, don’t live in Minnesota.
Meanwhile, Trump’s Energy Secretary LIED about the US Navy successfully escorting an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, all to try to juice up the market, which is tanking.
“If you don’t like it, don’t live in Minnesota.”
If you don’t like the Constitution of the United States, don’t live here.
You move.
If *you* don’t like conservative legislation passed in a red state that you believes violates the Constitution, do you just shrug and say “don’t live in that state”? I thought not.
What matters is not what you beleive about the constitution, but what the constitution actually says.
Left or right – if you do not like it – you are free to try to amendment it.
In the meantime we are required to live and govern within the boundaries of the constitution and constitutional laws.
That is what the rule of law means.
The DJIA is doing fine. Oil is about $90/bbl – down from a brief spike to 140.
It will drop further when this is all over.
Ships have been turning off their radar and transponders and running the straight successfully for several days.
Ending any threat from Iran to close the straights of Hormuz will take some time – but it will happen
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
More than anyone, thank George W. Bush for losing your 2nd Amendment rights.
When Bush officials were illegally violating the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments, most Republicans and Conservatives were silent – not a peep about infringing upon Americans constitutional rights.
Bush created a foreign style “Preemption & Prevention Doctrine” with federal grants paid to state and local governments along with Fusion Centers (unconstitutional blacklisting centers) in every state. Blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and every official’s oath of office. Not a peep from most Republicans and Conservatives.
Bush officials also perceived dark skinned Americans playing paintball as probable cause to be investigated as a terrorist training exercise. If you had blond hair, it was not perceived as probable cause.
Bush then illegally established a 100-mile “Constitution Free” (lawless zone) where immigration officials perceived themselves with extrajudicial authority to stop and search anyone or anything within 100 miles of a border. Trump in Minnesota extended that illegal zones way past 100 miles.
The most evil torture tactic of all “Covert Blacklisting” – there are likely almost 1 million persons blacklisted for life (punished for life) with no indictment, no trial, no judge, no jury and no guilty verdict. Statistics based on the federal governments own watch list statistics compared to actual convictions.
If Bush created a weak flawed “foundation” – you need to tear that down first and rebuild. That’s the best protection of your 2nd Amendment rights – make presidents start being loyal to their oath of office. Undo the damage Bush did and every other president has abused since.
In over 20 years not a peep from most Republicans and Conservatives since it was directed at dark skin Americans. Now they are whining about the 2nd Amendment. Send a big thank you to Bush & Cheney!
The comments to the March 10th column jonathanturley.org/2026/03/10/seventh-circuit-delivers-sharp-rebuke-to-chicago-district-judge-over-her-constitutionally-suspect-orders-against-the-trump-administration/ show multiple posters who claim to be (or a t least lean) conservative piously decrying the idea that the Trump administration should just ignore blatantly unconstitutional Federal District Court rulings. I find that to be asinine, when so many state-level politicians are ignoring SCOTUS 2A affirming rulings and completely getting away with it. Are we supposed to be satisfied with chastising those politicians, to no effect? I fully understand the reluctance to embrace distasteful tactics of the enemy, but the point of tactics is to win, not to play nicely with others who will not reciprocate. The alternative may effectively be suicide.
Prof. Turley,
The landmark supreme court cases – Heller, McDonald, Bruen have driven the left to apoplexy and they have suddenly decided to pass the most idiotic and unconstitutional gun laws throughout the country.
All this is doing is tying up the courts in stupid litigation over unconstitutional laws.
It is likely that SCOTUS will take up the issue of high capacity magazines shortly as we have the rough equivalent of a circuit split.
It is highly unlikely that laws laws banning anything but extremely high capacity magazines will be upheld.
Here is a summary of major recent cases and their holdings.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/gun-rights/
All these laws are just stupid and wasteful of the precious time of our courts.
The laws should be declared unconstitutional instantly at the district court level.
But we have enough left wing nut judges that we are going to see the left fight losing battles over 2A issues for probably another decade.
About the only area where the Supreme court is granting states SOME latitude on 2A issues is “red flag” laws.
The court is giving too much lattitude to laws that allow “mental health checks” and the confiscation of firearms from people who have encounters with the mental health field.
In virtually all other areas SCOTUS is stricking down these lunatic left gun laws.
Howe are the drugs today john?
“These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer.”
Seriously?! Turley has apparently resumed proudly displaying his gross (studied?) ignorance of firearms, and this phrase portrays a knee-jerk liberal reaction very evocative of his past. So-called AR-15 type firearms may be purchased for a variety of purposes, from target competition to self and home defense, to (yes, far more often than some of you might imagine) hunting. None of those prospective targets are typically “armored”. So-called AR-15 type firearms are typically either 5.56mm NATO or .223 Remington caliber (which are sometimes, but not always, safely interchangeable). Ammunition in those calibers comes in a very wide variety of formats (thanks to their very wide popularity) that suit an equally wide variety of uses. “Armor piercing” is a characteristic of ammunition obtained by designs and materials, is not strongly related to caliber, and not at all to rifle type. Such ammunition is a specialty item with a super hard and dense core of specially hardened steel, tungsten alloys, or even depleted uranium, enveloped in softer metals to avoid severe barrel wear. That ammunition is hard to find, extremely expensive, and seldom is present in the arsenal of even self-described prepper types.
Ano
You think, just maybe. Turley was just making a joke.
DustOff,
Yeah, that is what I was thinking.
Although, the original requirement for the SS109/M855 5.56NATO was the ability to penetrate through one side of a US WWII steel helmet at 500yrds.
Just looked it up, you can buy SS109/M855 ammo from MidwayUSA today.
You and dustoff, a pair of idiots pretending to be intellectuals. Clowns.
Not that you would comprehend it.
How can it be legal to require people to surrender their 4th Amendment rights in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? What next? In order to exercise your freedom of religion, you have to give up your freedom of speech and agree to not criticize the government? This is the tyranny our founders warned us about.
It is not.
Bruen
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify a firearm regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Caetano
The Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states.
McDonald
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. (In other words, the right is protected from state as well as federal interference.
Heller
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Whomever is making these laws is not an American. The same holds true for self reliance. Many do not know the American value of self reliance. They are not Americans. The do not understand the government gives them nothing. It’s all very odd listening to Mamdami speeches as if he’s some kind of ruler. He’s going to hit a brick wall.
OT
The Persian Empire was Great. Persians are great. Where the —- are they? Where the —- are the Great Persians in their Finest Hour?
If it was up your arse you’d know it! You could look it eye to eye.
So, not so great, after all?
Was that a QR code?
They ran into Alexander the Great and later Timugin- the Ghengis Kahn. They’ve been screwing up the story since at least the time of Sargon. Now it’s our turn with them.
Here we go again. Democrats pass some un-Constitutional law, goes all the way up to the SC. SC rules it un-Constitutional, sets precedent to further secure gun ownership rights.
We wonder why our courts and DOJ are clogged with ten year backlogs and thousands of pending indictments. It’s another example of Cloward Piven style lawfare tactics from the Progressive Communist Democrats, frivolous lawsuits, ridiculous pleadings and bills that are blatantly unconstitutional submitted to jam the courts and thwart the conservative movement.
And then the state repasses some rehashed version of the same nonsense.
Bruen – striking NY’s idiotic gen laws was passed in 2022. NYS responding by passing the same laws using a slightly different – stupider basis.
That is slowly working its way back to SCOTUS where it will be tossed again.
All this nonsense is, is performative nonsense by the left.
Various left wing nut states pass stupid laws – sometimes even the 9th cirtcuit – California chokes on these stupid laws,
And the whole mess heads to the supreme court – who often does not even here thecase – just reverses and remands telling the lower courts and legislatures to READ BRUEN.
We are doing versions of the same nonsense with this garbage trying to thwart Trump’s immigration law enforcement.
These are all LOSING cases.
The singular and pervasive American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
There is no legal basis for it, and the entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Please provide a citation for a legal basis for any of this.
Shall not be infringed….uh hem, registered so they know where they are. 😂 oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive. 😂
Insurrectionist democrats now offering a right to gun ownership. MOM!
Mom: We already have gun ownership at home.
The offending statement: “A person described in paragraph (a) must: … (2) agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the device to ensure compliance with this subdivision;” We are looking down the slippery slope of the positive rights mentality in legislatures where the government grants “rights” but only under certain conditions.