Every now and then, a Supreme Court filing comes along that makes you stop, reread the argument and wonder if you understood it correctly the first time.
This is one of those filings.
Connecticut attorney David A. Robinson has submitted an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. His central argument is not simply that certain rifles can be regulated. He wants the Court to declare part of the Second Amendment “extinct.”
Yes, that is the word used in the brief.
The AR-15 Case Before the Court
The filing comes in the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The cases challenge bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.
The question before the Supreme Court is straightforward: Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms?
The Court granted review on June 30, consolidated the two cases and scheduled oral arguments for December 2, 2026.
Robinson’s brief supports the governments defending their bans. However, an important distinction needs to be made. This is not a ruling, a government filing or the official brief from either respondent. Robinson wrote and funded it himself. As of October 27, the Supreme Court docket listed it as “submitted.”
If the Amendment Process Fails, Ask the Court?
Robinson says he previously tried to build support for a proposed 28th Amendment that would rewrite the constitutional protection for arms. He self-published a short book, purchased Amazon and Facebook ads and contacted elected officials.
The campaign went nowhere.
That failure becomes part of his argument to the Court. Robinson reasons that because Americans could not agree on new constitutional language, the justices should step in and declare which portions of the existing Second Amendment remain alive.
That is where the argument starts running backward.
The Constitution already provides a process for changing its language through Article V. If an effort to amend the Constitution fails, the original language remains in effect. Failure to persuade the public does not normally create permission for judges to rewrite the provision themselves.
Robinson nevertheless asks the Court to declare the militia clause “extinct.” He then argues that the protection for keeping and bearing arms should survive only to the extent judges consider a weapon necessary for personal defense or hunting.
That turns an explicit constitutional limit on government into a government-approved list of permitted purposes.
The Brief Takes Some Wild Turns
Robinson compares the Second Amendment’s militia language to Major League Baseball’s pre-1947 exclusion of Black players. He claims both concepts may have made sense to people in their respective eras but are now outdated.
He also compares firearm-capacity limits to speed limits on cars.
That analogy skips over a fairly important detail. Driving at a particular speed is not an enumerated constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms is.
The filing goes further by suggesting that AR-15 owners who cite protection against tyranny must believe they have the right to shoot police officers attempting to enforce a firearm ban. Robinson describes gun owners as combining a “1791 mentality” with a modern AR-15.
That is a massive leap from opposing government overreach to advocating violence against individual officers. It substitutes an extreme hypothetical for the actual question before the Court: whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles fall within the protection of the Second Amendment.
The brief concludes with an imaginary conversation between a 9-year-old student and her teacher during an active-shooter drill. Robinson says the hypothetical conversation “proves” semiautomatic rifles are not constitutionally protected.
It may illustrate his policy concerns, but an invented conversation is not historical evidence or constitutional analysis.
The Argument Collides With Heller
The biggest problem is that Robinson’s “extinct militia” theory runs directly into District of Columbia v. Heller.
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that is not dependent on service in a militia. The Court also explained that the amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but “does not limit or expand the scope” of its operative guarantee.
Robinson quotes Heller’s statement that courts cannot pronounce the Second Amendment extinct, but then asks the Court to do essentially that.
His claim that the militia no longer exists is also hard to square with current law. Federal law still recognizes both an organized militia and an unorganized militia. Whether that statute resolves the AR-15 question is another matter, but it certainly complicates the claim that the militia has simply vanished.
Robinson also argues that because Garland v. Cargill did not decide whether bump stocks receive Second Amendment protection, semiautomatic rifles may be banned. But Cargill addressed whether a bump-stock-equipped rifle qualified as a machine gun under federal statutory language. The Court’s decision not to reach a separate constitutional question did not answer it against gun owners.
Why This Brief Is Getting Attention
The filing probably will not become the central argument in these cases. It is one independently submitted amicus brief among dozens, and it does not speak for Cook County, Connecticut or the Supreme Court.
Still, it puts a remarkably blunt version of the anti-AR argument into the official record.
The Constitution is too old. The militia is obsolete. Modern rifles are too effective. The amendment process failed. Therefore, judges should declare part of the Second Amendment dead and let governments decide which arms citizens really need.
For gun owners, that sequence is exactly why constitutional protections exist in the first place.
What do you think? Is this brief simply an outlier, or does it say the quiet part out loud about the broader effort to remove AR-15s from Second Amendment protection?
=========================================== In my humble opinion. I kind of doubt that this court would do something so opposed to their previous holding on the 2nd Ad. . But then the crazier things than this have happened before. Grumpy
An extraordinary 4,000-meter sniper shot involving a Ukrainian-made Snipex Alligator rifle highlights how artificial intelligence, drones, and precision shooting are changing the modern battlefield.
By WsjStaff
According to an article from San.com, a Ukrainian sniper has reportedly accomplished one of the most extraordinary feats in modern military marksmanship, eliminating two Russian soldiers with a single shot from an astonishing distance of 4,000 meters, or approximately 2.49 miles.
The engagement, attributed to Ukraine’s elite Pryvyd, or “Ghost,” sniper unit, has been described as a new world record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat history. While independent verification of the record remains important, the reported engagement illustrates a significant development in long-range warfare: the integration of precision rifles, aerial surveillance, and artificial intelligence.
What makes this incident particularly remarkable isn’t simply the distance. It is the sophisticated coordination of technology and personnel reportedly required to make the shot possible.
At nearly two and a half miles, the engagement pushes beyond conventional expectations of battlefield marksmanship. The sniper was reportedly operating as part of an integrated team that included drone operators, spotters, and personnel using computer-assisted ballistic calculations.
Rather than relying exclusively on what the shooter could observe through a riflescope, the team reportedly used electronically transmitted targeting information to coordinate the engagement. The result represents a potential milestone in the evolution of precision shooting.
The Snipex Alligator: A Ukrainian Long-Range Powerhouse
At the center of this remarkable engagement was the Ukrainian-manufactured Snipex Alligator, a massive 14.5mm anti-materiel rifle designed primarily to engage equipment, lightly armored vehicles, and other hardened targets. Unlike conventional sniper rifles chambered in .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, or .338 Lapua Magnum, the Alligator employs the considerably larger 14.5×114mm cartridge.
Originally developed for heavy military applications, this cartridge delivers substantially greater projectile mass and energy than traditional sniper ammunition. The rifle itself is equally imposing.
According to the video’s account, the Alligator weighs approximately 55 pounds and measures roughly 6.5 feet in length. Its substantial size makes it unsuitable for the mobility normally associated with traditional sniper operations. However, portability takes a secondary role when the objective involves engaging targets at extreme distances.
The rifle’s heavy construction and powerful cartridge provide the foundation for long-range ballistic performance, although even these characteristics cannot eliminate the substantial challenges involved in a 4,000-meter shot. At such distances, equipment represents only one part of the equation. Environmental conditions, projectile behavior, and accurate targeting information become increasingly important.
The Challenge of a 4,000-Meter Shot
To appreciate the reported accomplishment, consider the enormous distance involved. Four thousand meters equals approximately 13,123 feet, or nearly 44 football fields placed end to end.
Even experienced precision shooters recognize that engaging targets beyond 1,000 meters requires considerable skill, specialized equipment, and favorable environmental conditions. At four times that distance, relatively small errors can produce dramatic changes in where a projectile strikes.
Wind is among the most significant variables. A projectile traveling several thousand meters may encounter different wind conditions along its flight path. Wind speed and direction can change across open terrain, wooded areas, and changes in elevation.
Atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity also influence projectile flight. At extreme distances, shooters must additionally consider the Earth’s rotation, commonly addressed through calculations involving the Coriolis effect. The projectile’s natural dispersion introduces another challenge. Even a highly accurate rifle and ammunition combination cannot guarantee identical impacts from shot to shot. These factors make the reported engagement exceptional, particularly because the targets were reportedly identified and monitored through an electronic surveillance network.
The shot was not simply a demonstration of individual marksmanship. It was reportedly the product of coordinated battlefield intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence and Drones Enter the Equation
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the engagement was the reported use of drone-based surveillance and AI-assisted ballistic calculations. According to the account, the Ukrainian sniper team relied on several interconnected elements to coordinate the shot.
Aerial observers monitored the target area while spotters and technical operators supplied information to personnel responsible for the firing solution. Artificial intelligence reportedly assisted with trajectory calculations, while drone imagery provided additional situational awareness.
The unit commander reportedly emphasized that the engagement depended on cooperation among shooters, spotters, AI operators, and aerial observers. Each component contributed information that would have been difficult for an individual sniper to obtain independently. The account further suggests that the shooter did not directly observe the targets with the naked eye, instead relying on electronically relayed information.
That distinction is significant. Traditional sniper operations generally involve a shooter and spotter working together to identify targets, evaluate conditions, and observe impacts. In this reported engagement, the spotting process expanded into a network involving aerial surveillance and computational assistance.
It demonstrates how modern precision shooting is increasingly becoming a coordinated technological operation rather than an isolated contest between shooter and target. However, the precise capabilities of the AI system, its level of automation, and its contribution to the final firing solution have not been independently established.
Thermal Imaging Changes Battlefield Concealment
The article describes how Ukrainian forces have integrated thermal imaging into sniper and drone operations.
Unlike conventional optical systems that depend on visible light, thermal cameras detect differences in infrared radiation associated with surface temperatures. This technology allows operators to identify potential human targets in darkness and under certain conditions where ordinary visual observation would be difficult. The transcript references Ukrainian sniper engagements near Bakhmut at distances of approximately 900 meters or more using thermal optics.
For perspective, 900 meters represents nearly ten football fields. At those distances, identifying and tracking personnel at night can provide a substantial tactical advantage.
However, thermal imaging is not infallible. Terrain, vegetation, weather, atmospheric conditions, and thermal shielding can interfere with detection.
The transcript also describes Russian soldiers employing thermal blankets to reduce their infrared signatures. Such equipment attempts to limit the contrast between a person’s thermal signature and the surrounding environment.
Nevertheless, concealment from thermal sensors does not necessarily provide concealment from conventional aerial cameras. Changes in movement, vegetation, and terrain can still reveal activity to observers. This combination of surveillance technologies creates significant challenges for forces attempting to remain undetected.
From Individual Snipers to Integrated Battlefield Systems
The larger lesson from the reported 4,000-meter engagement extends beyond the rifle or the shooter. Modern battlefield surveillance increasingly connects drones, sensors, communications networks, and precision weapons into integrated systems. Information gathered by one platform can be transmitted to another, allowing multiple operators to contribute to the same engagement. A drone may locate suspicious movement. A surveillance operator may monitor the area. A precision-shooting team may then use that information to assess whether a target can be engaged.
The video describes this coordination as a transition from traditional sniper operations toward a more comprehensive battlefield targeting network. Such integration can improve situational awareness and extend the effective reach of military units. It also introduces new vulnerabilities. Electronic warfare, disrupted communications, inaccurate sensor data, and unreliable targeting information can compromise the effectiveness of these systems. Consequently, human judgment and verification remain essential, particularly when decisions involve lethal force.
A Glimpse Into the Future of Precision Shooting
Whether the reported Ukrainian engagement ultimately receives universal recognition as a world record, its implications are substantial. The Snipex Alligator demonstrates the capabilities of modern heavy-caliber precision rifles, while the reported involvement of drones and AI-assisted calculations illustrates the growing importance of battlefield information systems.
The most consequential development may not be a longer-distance shot, but the expanding ability of military teams to identify, monitor, and engage targets using information gathered beyond the shooter’s immediate field of view.
For firearms enthusiasts and long-range shooting observers, the reported 4,000-meter engagement offers a striking example of how precision marksmanship is evolving. The rifle remains essential. So do the shooter’s training, experience, and judgment. But increasingly, the effectiveness of a sniper team depends on the information and technology supporting the person behind the trigger.
At nearly 2.5 miles, this reported shot may ultimately be remembered not only for its extraordinary distance, but also for the technological transformation it represents in modern warfare.
Categories
Fern Got NATO vs Russia Wrong
Depending upon how you count them, there are between 193 and 195 recognized countries in the world today. The Vatican and Palestine are the two most ambiguous examples. Nowadays, nations go to war over the most trivial geographical infractions. However, the world was once a much more rollicking, less regimented space.
This fetching lad is the esteemed Christopher Columbus. Depending upon your perspective, he was either a valiant explorer or a bloodthirsty imperialist.
The Guy
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships
The Nina, The Pinta and the Santa Maria, too.
He left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
Most everybody knows that Christopher Columbus was the first European to explore the Americas. There is controversy and ambiguity, because there will forever be controversy and ambiguity. Leif Erikson the Viking just popped over for a visit but didn’t stick around some 500 years earlier.
And there is the Native American perspective that they didn’t really need exploring at all and would sooner have simply been left alone. Regardless, 534 years ago, Chris and his mates were poking around Hispaniola (modern-day Haiti) when rank laziness conspired to shape the affairs of men.
This is a reproduction of the Santa Maria, Columbus’ flagship. Considering what was being asked of it, she wasn’t much of a boat.
The Ship
Columbus’ flagship was the Santa María. She was a 15th-century carrack that had been previously christened La Gallega. It was a long time ago, and the specific dimensions are in dispute. Most historians agree that the Santa Maria was about 62 feet long on deck and displaced some 125 tons. She was crewed by between 40 and 45 sailors.
62 feet is not a terribly big boat to be traversing the entire breadth of the Atlantic Ocean. And that was the largest of his three. Columbus’ expedition was indeed a fairly bold enterprise.
On Christmas Day 1492, Columbus and his buddies had just killed an eventful few days navigating around the northern coast of Hispaniola, avoiding obstacles and trading with the local Taino people.
They had gone two nights without sleep and were all fairly spanked. With the sea a dead calm (“like water in a bowl” per his later description), Columbus retired to his cabin for a little shut-eye. He left the ship in the hands of his capable but equally exhausted helmsman.
At around 11 pm, the helmsman, feeling like there really wasn’t much untoward that could occur in seas this smooth, passed the reins off to a grumete or cabin boy and hit the rack himself. Columbus had specific standing orders never to do this. However, when the cat’s away …
The Accident
As everybody else on the Santa Maria slept soundly, this poor, inexperienced kid just held the course. Without anyone being the wiser, prevailing currents pushed the heavy vessel toward a sandbar. The first inkling that something was amiss occurred when the rudder scraped the sand.
The poor kid screamed like he was being skinned. Columbus and the ship’s master, Juan de la Cosa, rushed to the deck. However, by then it was too late. The ship was most thoroughly grounded.
This was bad, but it wasn’t the end of the world. These were experienced sailors. Columbus directed De la Cosa to launch a small boat, secure an anchor, and then winch the Santa Maria backward off of the sandbar. However, the tide was going out. The clock was ticking.
The Coward
There was no Coast Guard cutter or rescue helicopter standing by. They were a zillion miles from home, surrounded by unexplored territory and a bunch of sketchy natives. If they screwed this up, these guys were done. As such, when De la Cosa got out in his small boat, he just scuppered off to the nearby Nina and left Columbus to fend for himself.
The Nina’s skipper wisely refused to allow the coward De la Cosa to board, so he returned to the Santa Maria a humble and broken man. However, by then the damage was done. The Santa Maria was doomed.
The Catastrophe
These big wooden ships looked substantial, but they weren’t designed to support their own mass outside the water. As the sea receded, the ship’s seams split. The Santa Maria was irretrievably ruined. As the tide came back in, she filled with water.
A local Taíno chief named Guacanagaríx paddled out to help along with some of his mates. The crew salvaged the cargo and harvested as much of the ship’s timber as possible. However, the remaining crew members would not all fit aboard the remaining ships.
Columbus used the salvaged materials from the Santa Maria to construct a fortified settlement, the first of its kind in the Americas. He named it La Navidad (Christmas) because the accident occurred on Christmas Day. Necessity forced him to leave behind thirty-nine of his men.
So the first official European settlement in the New World was the result of a sleepy helmsman, a cowardly ship’s master, and a cabin boy who was just doing the very best he could.
