Day: October 8, 2026

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals of two lower court rulings that challenged assault weapons restrictions. The high court will decide whether the Second and 14th amendments protect the right to possess semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. This marks a reversal for the court, which for years has declined to consider such challenges.

Two lower court rulings followed the Supreme Court announcement. On July 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld Illinois’ assault weapons ban. And on July 17, the 33rd Circuit struck down New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, making it the first federal appeals court to so rule.

Some analysts suggested that these decisions had an eye on the Supreme Court’s fall review.

As a gun policy scholar, I believe this flurry of legal activity brings to a head the multi-decade dispute over restricting assault weapons that extends far beyond legal arguments. The source of the conflict ranges from elements of gun culture identity to the technical characteristics of these weapons. Much of this controversy remains misunderstood, including conflicting claims about the weapons’ origins and definition.

Where the court ultimately stands will have to do with its answers to these tough questions. Is an assault weapon a weapon of war or a sporting rifle? Is it a machine gun or simply a tricked-out hunting rifle? Does it really pose a risk to the public compared to other guns?

A short history of assault-style guns

Assault-style weapons – particularly the AR-15 – date to the late 1950s, when they emerged as a next-generation battlefield weapon.

According to Jim Sullivan, one of the AR-15’s designers, the weapon was “designed for full automatic military use. It wasn’t really designed as a sporting rifle.” The U.S. military adopted the weapon during the Vietnam War and designated it as the M16. The gun could fire in automatic or semi-automatic fashion.

As military demand for the M16 declined, a semi-automatic version, the AR-15, was sold to the domestic civilian market. But consumers took little interest until the late 1980s, when cheap imports began to flood the market.

Then in 1989, an assailant attacked an elementary school in Stockton, California, using an assault rifle to kill five people and wound 29, prompting public outcry and calls to restrict such weapons. Other mass shootings in Killeen, Texas, in 1991 and San Francisco in 1993 followed.

Outrage over these shootings led Congress to pass the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a 10-year ban on specific types of assault weapons. But the ban lapsed in 2004 because the law included a sunset provision. Repeated efforts to resurrect it have failed.

Today, 15 states have enacted assault weapons restrictions. Most of these laws ban their manufacture, sale or transfer.

Opponents of these laws note that the weapons available to civilians fire only in semi-automatic mode, making them functionally no different from traditional semi-automatic hunting rifles.

However, even in semi-automatic firing mode, the assault weapon is destructive and usually retains other military features. Battlefield experience has found that semi-automatic firing – a single round for each pull of the trigger – is often more effective, as it improved targeting and wasted less ammunition.

It’s also worth noting that the term “assault weapon” predates 1989 and the era of mass shootings. Gun manufacturers used the term before the 1980s, when the rifle’s military provenance was a major selling point.

Assault weapon popularity

Opponents of these restrictions argue that assault weapons have become the nation’s highest-selling guns, with sales increasing after the federal assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004.

Much of this market has been driven by politics. Assault weapons buyers increasingly view such purchases as a way to make a political statement – to register their objection to gun regulations. The gun industry refers to these purchases as “political sales.”

Supporters of assault weapons restrictions propose a different calculus: These weapons represent a small percentage of the total number of guns in the country while accounting for an inordinate number of mass shooting casualties. There are no precise counts of assault weapons, but if a 2022 estimate of 20 million is divided by a total of some 400 million guns in the U.S., assault weapons represent only about 5% of them.

Assault weapons and crime

Opponents of assault weapons restrictions are correct in pointing out that such weapons are rarely used in crimes committed with guns. Indeed, nearly 80% of those weapons are handguns.

On the other hand, assault weapons pose three specific safety threats.

First, they are increasingly the gun of choice for mass shooters. Handguns are used in roughly two-thirds of all mass shootings, but assault weapons are appearing with increasing frequency – nearly 40% of these events in the past decade.

Moreover, they result in greater harm. That’s because of their ability to use large-capacity ammunition magazines, which can hold up to 100 rounds. And their muzzle velocity – the speed at which the bullet leaves the barrel – means rounds travel farther and cause more harm.

A 2019 study of public mass shootings found that over 85% of fatalities from those incidents were from assault rifles. And in the past 10 years, the 10 highest-casualty mass shootings were committed with assault weapons.

Second, assault weapons are disproportionately more likely to be used in the shooting of a police officer.

Third, they are increasingly guns of choice for gang-style violence and extremist political groups.

What comes next

When the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons cases this fall, it will apply its history standard to determine whether assault weapons restrictions are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

As I mention in my book, if the history of weapons regulation shows anything, it is that weapons deemed dangerous by the public and state and local governments or otherwise incompatible with civilian use have been widely restricted. That includes everything from Bowie knives and certain types of clubs to the notorious Tommy gun of the 1920s.

Despite this extensive regulatory past, experts generally expect that the court will strike down assault weapons restrictions. If so, it will be hard-pressed to justify the result as consistent with America’s extensive history of weapons regulation.

Robert Spitzer is a member of the National Rifle Association and of Brady United Against Gun Violence

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

After high-level Trump administration officials said they might send armed officers to the polls during the upcoming midterm elections, and after months of administration efforts to wrest control of some aspects of voting from state officials and limit how people vote, there’s a lot of fear that armed federal officials will disrupt voting and even seize ballots. A number of civil rights and voter advocacy groups and labor unions have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to bar any such presence, with one suit claiming that “threatening messaging and violent enforcement actions” by administration officials “have created a climate in which voters, especially voters of color, are intimidated and fearful of engaging in the democratic process.”

The Conversation asked scholar Danielle Friedman, legal director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, to answer four fundamental questions about the law protecting voters’ rights at the polls as well as the protection of their ballots.

What does the law say about armed officials at polling places?

Federal law directly prohibits federal troops or armed officers, including federal law enforcement agents, from appearing at polling places during an election.

Other federal laws, which more broadly prohibit any intimidation of, or interference with, voters may also be applied to keep armed officials from appearing at polling places.

Despite these clear restrictions, some federal officials have suggested publicly that they still may deploy armed federal officials to polling places during the upcoming midterm elections.

For that reason, it is important to remember that state laws also likely prohibit armed officials from appearing at polling places. The specific law in each state varies, but all states have some restrictions on behavior at or near polling locations that are intended to ensure that voters can cast a ballot free from intimidation.

Similar to federal law, some states have laws directly prohibiting armed officials at polling places. Others have more broad statutes prohibiting any kind of intimidating behavior.

Many states also prohibit any person from having a firearm at or near a polling location. These laws may apply to armed officials in the same way that they apply to other individuals.

Can local police legitimately be at a polling site?

The answer to this question will depend on state law. But in many cases, local police may only be at a polling location if a local election official has specifically requested the presence of law enforcement.

That may happen if, for example, there is an emergency at the polling place and local police are called to help de-escalate the situation. In many states, when the local police are called to assist with a situation, they are required to follow the orders of the local election officials when they arrive.

What should a person do if armed officials show up at polling places?

If a voter sees armed officials at a polling place, they should alert the election officials at the polling place right away. Election officials have specific procedures to follow to report the situation and have it appropriately handled in an efficient manner.

Depending on the nature of the situation, the voter may also want to document the behavior that they see and provide that information to the election official at the appropriate time.

What laws apply to the seizure of ballots?

There are many laws that may ultimately apply to the seizure of ballots, but the most critical are the very specific laws in every state about the chain of custody of ballots.

Chain of custody refers to rules that make clear who can have access to ballots both before an election and after each ballot has been cast. The reason for these rules is obvious: Ensuring that only certain individuals have access to the ballots used in an election protects the integrity of that election and ensures that there is no interference from outside actors in the ultimate result.

A seizure of ballots by law enforcement would likely violate these chain of custody laws and could undermine the integrity of the election results that they are intended to protect.

A recent case in California helps to illustrate these issues. A sheriff in Riverside County seized hundreds of thousands of ballots cast in connection with a special election, claiming that there were anomalies in the results that had not been fully explained.

This action by the sheriff was challenged by, among others, voters in Riverside County who argued that it violated the state’s chain of custody rules. The California Supreme Court agreed.

Importantly, the state Supreme Court also noted that this does not mean that there is nothing to be done about allegations or issues related to an election. The law in California, and in all states, provides many options for citizens or officials in those cases – seizure of ballots by law enforcement officials is simply not one of them.

The seizure in Riverside County was in connection with a past election, but the case provides an important road map for courts that may be confronted with these issues in the context of an ongoing election in November. Adherence to the chain of custody laws is even more critical before an official result has been certified, and legal experts have encouraged judges to scrutinize warrant applications for ballots especially closely.

Danielle Friedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

As midterm elections near, Democrats enjoy advantages in national “generic ballot” polling, suggesting they may secure majorities in the House of Representative or Senate, if not both chambers.

But the reality is that partisan control on Capitol Hill will be determined by just a handful of competitive House and Senate contests. The Cook Political Report currently classifies only 22 House campaigns and only seven Senate campaigns as toss-ups, where either the Democrat or the Republican has a genuine chance of winning.

By definition, neither party enjoys a clear advantage in these contests, so both will look to augment their base support with the votes of independents.

As a political science scholar focused on voting and elections, I believe that in the last few weeks before Election Day, those voters will feature prominently in campaign strategies.

Independents are dissatisfied

Midterm congressional elections serve as a referendum on the president’s performance.

Presidential approval polls and surveys about the economy indicate that independents do not favor President Donald Trump or the Republican Party.

A September 2026 YouGov survey found that only 23% of independents approve of Trump’s job as president, compared with 79% of Republicans and 2% of Democrats. This continues a steady drop in independents’ approval of Trump throughout his second term.

Independents have also soured on Trump’s handling of the economy, with 73% in a September Fox News poll saying that Trump has made the economy worse, a sentiment also expressed by 95% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans.

Independents have also registered their discontent with the war in Iran. Only 22% of independents think the war has been worth fighting, a view expressed by 63% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats. And 83% of independents do not think the Trump administration has a clear plan for ending the war.

Across these policy questions and performance assessments, Democrats and Republicans express clear and consistent support for their party’s positions and candidates. Independents, not surprisingly, stake out something of a middle ground.

But on key predictors of vote choice, especially presidential approval and economic evaluations, the opinions of independents appear to be closer to those of Democrats than to Republicans. Independents’ current pro-Democratic slant is not dramatic, but it could be significant in crucial toss-up contests.

One prominent Republican pollster, David Winston, has sounded an alarm about “unhappy independents” and their threat to continued GOP control of Congress.

How to win the independent vote

In closely fought House and Senate contests, both parties need to make inroads with independent voters, which poses some challenges.

First, independent voters’ turnout in midterms usually lags behind that of party members. So motivating and mobilizing independents will likely require added effort.

It’s worth noting, however, that a recent Emerson College poll showed 70% of independents were very excited about voting in the midterms. That’s on par with the level of enthusiasm expressed by Republicans and Democrats.

A second challenge for candidates is to develop campaign messaging that can connect with independent voters. For almost any candidate running for office, a top priority is to mobilize the party base. This is especially critical in toss-up contests such as the Michigan or Texas Senate races, where the base alone won’t guarantee victory.

But the themes that motivate the party faithful may not sit well with independents, who tend to recoil against partisan rancor.

For instance, Republican voters in Michigan’s 10th Congressional District might applaud Mike Bouchard’s pledge to combat “radical socialism,” but independent voters might find it a bit overdone. By contrast, independent voters do appear to be responsive to the more substantive policy priorities of congressional candidates.

In other words, congressional candidates, especially those in highly competitive races in Texas, Nebraska and Kansas, will need to employ sharply partisan rhetoric to fire up their base while also offering more sober, policy-based appeals to independents.

Striking that balance might be especially difficult for Republican candidates.

Trump clearly wants the midterms to be a referendum on his record, and he wants voters to imagine that he is on the ballot. It’s an effort by the White House to increase turnout among so-called low-propensity Trump voters. These are people who have voted for Trump in presidential elections and continue to support the president, but who often do not vote in midterms.

Putting Trump center stage might well excite this segment of Trump supporters, but it might also remind independents of their deepening reservations about the president.

Democratic congressional candidates will also need to be careful about balancing partisan messages to their base with more measured appeals to independent voters. But Democrats don’t have to share the spotlight with the president, so their balancing acts are not as delicate as those confronting their Republican opponents.

At this point in the campaign, it appears that the Trump administration’s record on issues that matter to Americans is pushing independents – in some cases gently, in some cases more decidedly – in a Democratic direction.

Julio Borquez does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Learn how Bob Dunn chose to create a AI Transparency Report for the Open Channels FM Podcast Network.