On Saturday’s Join with Jacob Soboroff present on MS NOW, fill-in host Melissa Murray presided over a phase during which one visitor promoted the weak liberal narrative that the Second Modification solely applies to weapons that existed within the 1700s.
Whereas discussing how the U.S. Supreme Courtroom is more likely to rule on the problem of regulating so-called “assault weapons,” Murray referred to bans on “semi-automatic weapons” as she posed: “The Second Modification, as you understand, includes the best to maintain and bear arms. What do we all know from the court docket of their most up-to-date rulings about how the justices are possible to answer this problem to bans on semi-automatic weapons?”
Liberal authorized analyst Leah Litman, professor of legislation on the College of Michigan, instantly acquired to her flaky evaluation:
Sadly, the Supreme Courtroom, or at the least the Republican appointees, have proven they’ve a ton of zeal for mainly cannibalizing and eliminating widespread sense gun management regulation as a result of they’ve adopted an interpretation of the Second Modification that maintains firearms that did not exist on the time the Second Modification was ratified — these are nonetheless constitutionally protected.
After Sandy Hook Promise’s Mark Barden complained in regards to the failure to enact strict gun management within the aftermath of faculty shootings, Murray turned to Litman and adopted up:
…Luigi Mangione gunned down a well being care CEO on the streets of Manhattan, and he used a ghost gun that was one of many weapons at challenge in these laws that finally have been upheld. And it appeared like that actual truth — that realpolitik may need coloured the justices’ deliberations. Do you suppose that the fact that Mark has alluded to, the truth that college shootings and the usage of AR-15’s is so prevalent, can even form the court docket’s choice making right here?
Litman asserted that such “proof” doesn’t matter to conservative Supreme Courtroom justices:
However as a authorized matter, the Republican appointees on the Supreme Courtroom have sadly mentioned that when they’re analyzing the constitutionality of those legal guidelines, proof, empirical findings, these do not matter. What issues is the justices’ tackle historical past.
She quickly concluded that Republicans have an “odd” interpretation of historical past that governs their views on gun rights:
I very a lot hope that each one of this proof and the horrific casualties which have resulted from mass shootings carried out with computerized semiautomatic rifles moved the justices. And people details ought to keep within the public narrative. However I’m involved that, as a authorized matter, the Republican appointees have mainly mentioned, “We do not care in regards to the empirics, the proof or the details. What we care about is our frankly odd tackle historical past.”
Transcript follows:
MS NOW’s Join with Jacob Soboroff
August 22, 2026
10:28 a.m. Jap
MELISSA MURRAY, FILL-IN HOST: This consolidated set of instances has actually captured the eye of many Second Modification fanatics. The Second Modification, as you understand, includes the best to maintain and bear arms. What do we all know from the court docket of their most up-to-date rulings about how the justices are possible to answer this problem to bans on semi-automatic weapons?
LEAH LITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: Sadly, the Supreme Courtroom, or at the least the Republican appointees, have proven they’ve a ton of zeal for mainly cannibalizing and eliminating widespread sense gun management regulation as a result of they’ve adopted an interpretation of the Second Modification that maintains firearms that did not exist on the time the Second Modification was ratified — these are nonetheless constitutionally protected.
And but governments have to point out that the regulation of these firearms that is used immediately resembles the type of laws that have been utilized to firearms that regarded considerably totally different than firearms do immediately. That’s, the federal government must present that it’s regulating AR-15’s in the identical manner that the federal government’s regulated particularly harmful weapons that existed within the 1700s and 1800s — like, I do not know, muskets or bayonets. And primarily based on that logic, the court docket final time period struck down two gun management laws, one on the federal degree and one on the state degree. So I feel it’s totally regarding that the court docket took up this specific case.
(…)
MURRAY: Mark Barden has simply alluded to the realpolitik of this. And we now have youngsters who’re studying the way to take care of lively shooter drills. Mass shootings are a truth of life right here in the US. Final time period, the Supreme Courtroom additionally took up a case. This was a couple of federal regulation on ghost weapons. And though at oral argument, it appeared that a few of the justices have been able to invalidate that regulation. In the end, the court docket upheld it.
And one of many issues we famous in our podcast, Strict Scrutiny, was that in the mean time between oral argument and the choice popping out, Luigi Mangione gunned down a well being care CEO on the streets of Manhattan, and he used a ghost gun that was one of many weapons at challenge in these laws that finally have been upheld. And it appeared like that actual proven fact that realpolitik may need coloured the justices’ deliberations. Do you suppose that the fact that Mark has alluded to, the truth that college shootings and the usage of AR-15’s is so prevalent, can even form the court docket’s choice making right here?
LITMAN: I definitely hope so. And I feel it is essential for organizations like Sandy Hook Promise and the others which can be concerned on this combat to proceed to make the case to the general public in regards to the significance of eliminating such harmful weapons from the fingers of could be mass shooters. However as a authorized matter, the Republican appointees on the Supreme Courtroom have sadly mentioned that when they’re analyzing the constitutionality of those legal guidelines, proof, empirical findings, these do not matter. What issues is the justices’ tackle historical past.
The ghost gun case that you just alluded to was really the Supreme Courtroom’s interpretation of a federal legislation. That’s, the court docket didn’t weigh in on the constitutionality of the federal legislation and federal regulation. So I very a lot hope that each one of this proof and the horrific casualties which have resulted from mass shootings carried out with computerized semiautomatic rifles moved the justices. And people details ought to keep within the public narrative. However I’m involved that, as a authorized matter, the Republican appointees have mainly mentioned, “We do not care in regards to the empirics, the proof or the details. What we care about is our frankly odd tackle historical past.”
MURRAY: Effectively, can we speak about that for a minute, Leah? I imply, the conservative justices who’ve voted to strike down these legal guidelines within the title of the Second Modification all declare to be originalists, that they’re simply doing what the framers of the Second Modification would have wished. However, as you talked about earlier, semi-automatic weapons are a really modern-day drawback. James Madison didn’t go round toting an AR-15. How will the court docket sq. the fact of this very trendy drawback with the language of the Structure and the context during which it was written?
LITMAN: They sadly do not actually attempt to sq. that, as we have instructed. They undertake protections for firearms that did not exist on the time of the founding on the identical time that they demand that the federal government present, properly, there have been laws that have been fairly much like trendy gun management measures. However they’ve been, frankly, fairly selective in how they’ve utilized this historic check as a result of in some instances, together with the one from final time period in addition to the New York case, you talked about, they’ve required the federal government to come back near exhibiting there was a historic twin for a gun management measure.
That’s, you need to present that an enacted legislation or regulation seems to be fairly much like the one being challenged. However then in one other case, they instructed a tough analogues type of parallels. These will do. And so it looks as if the type of historic evaluation that the justices use depend upon their underlying intuitions about their sympathy for the gun management measure. That is not precisely legislation like, however it would possibly give us some hope that they may very well be moved by the proof and the general public campaigns that present the dangerousness of those firearms, that perhaps that may persuade the justices to undertake a extra lenient historic evaluation.
