Clarence Thomas Announces He Wants to Ban Assault Weapons: Analysis

The Supreme Court has just issued a major series of decisions on gun-related cases, from the legality of bump stocks to the Second Amendment rights of domestic violence defendants. But far-right Justice Clarence Thomas wants to go further, taking on state bans on assault weapons.

According to Newsweek, the Supreme Court declined to take up an Illinois case that sought to determine whether the state's assault weapons ban is constitutional, but only because it wanted to wait and see how lower courts resolved the issue. Thomas accepted that position, but made it clear in his own writings that if he was unhappy with the court's decision, he would press the court to reconsider.

He also left little doubt in his comments about how he would govern.

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision shows why this Court needs to provide more guidance on what weapons are covered by the Second Amendment,” Thomas wrote. “By distorting the scant guidance provided by our precedents, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect ‘militaristic’ weapons… It then tautologically defined ‘militaristic’ weapons as those ‘that may be reserved for military use.’”

READ ALSO :Beware Lincoln and Reagan: Republican senators confuse history with Trump's declaration of greatness

“Assault weapons,” which were previously banned federally in the 1990s before Congress allowed the law to expire, have no official definition, but the Brady Center and the handful of states with bans on their books generally define assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms with features originally designed for military use.

These are distinct from “assault rifles,” which generally refer to firearms that can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic fire; these are heavily restricted by federal law.

Since former President Donald Trump secured a six-member right-wing majority, the Supreme Court has worked diligently to strike down gun laws, with one of the most notable cases being Bruen 2022 ruling, authored by Thomas, which decreed that all gun laws must have a historical analogue in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The decision caused chaos in lower courts as judges struggled to interpret the standard; Rahimi In its decision this term, which barred a federal law from owning guns by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders, the court appeared to depart slightly from that standard, over Thomas' objections, but still failed to articulate a clear standard for determining when a gun law is considered consistent with historical traditions.