Mag Bans and so called "assault weapon" ban cases scheduled for conference by SCOTUS

[Yarome]

Full stop.

That does not mean SCOTUS will actually grant cert, but 5 cases are currently scheduled for a May 16th conference. It would require 4 Justice votes to actually grant cert, but it's one step closer to getting these cases before SCOTUS.

This is simply meant as a status update and a flicker of hope we may actually have these types of infringement laws trashed from on high, nationwide.
Cross whatever ya got.

Two of the cases are SAF's covering the Illinois and Maryland suits. SAF's news release:

SCOTUS DISTRIBUTES SAF GUN BAN CHALLENGES FOR MAY 16 CONFERENCE - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – Two Second Amendment Foundation cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazine capacity—one in Illinois and the other in Maryland—are among five cases distributed Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court for conference May 16. The cases are known as Harrel v. Raoul...

saf.org

Read More

 

[Old Dog]

This is when we find out if any of the "conservative" justices really possess any cojones... or, as we suspect, they are not really true supporters of the 2A who will be content to just keep staling, let the status quo continue on (while still coming up with inexplicable rulings on other things that get the liberals all spooled up, like abortion).

Is anyone else getting the sense that none of the justices (aside from maybe Clarence, who seems to be MIA these days) desires their legacy to be as the court that truly defined the Second Amendment, cemented the right to keep and bear arms -- and that deep down, maybe they really believe in such things as "assault weapons bans" and magazine capacity restrictions?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Of the Nine;

Three are for sure in favor of gun control, expanded government agency control; Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor

Three may be against gun control and expanded govt agency control (depends on which agency and which gun control)
Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (any of these three may be swing votes)

Two are consistently against gun control, against expanded govt agency control;
Alito and Thomas

One consistently sides with the 3 Democratic appointed Justices; he is a swing vote, and it depends on how the cases are argued (see Bruen )
Roberts.


So. 3-2 with 4 possible swings.

the 3 Institutionalist/ pro-govt /"liberal" justices needs only to get Roberts and any one of these three (Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) to side with them against our understanding of the 2A, for a 5-4 decision.

The 2 Originalists needs to get at least 3 of the 4 remaining "conservatives" to side with them in support of 2A as written, for a 5-4 decision or hopefully a 6-3 if they can get Roberts on board like they did in Bruen

edit. Even if SCOTUS manage to decide in our favor, that may not stop States from going ahead in open defiance of SCOTUS (see NY after Bruen, and pretty much any Blue state after Roe's overturning)

 

[Loc]

If they do grant cert AND rule in favor of our understanding of 2A, the sellers of affected weapons had better be ready for a lot of buyers coming their way.

 

[quneur]

It will be interesting to see which justices will vote to issue certiorari. Those 'conservative' justices who vote against the 2A (if they grant certiorari) will have to come up with some unique logic for their justifications considering many of these cases were direct opposition responses to the SOTUS Bruen ruling (mag ban) and Heller (AWB).

 

[Yarome]

It will be interesting to see which justices will vote to issue certiorari. Those 'conservative' justices who vote against the 2A (if they grant certiorari) will have to come up with some unique logic for their justifications considering many of these cases were direct opposition responses to the SOTUS Bruen ruling (mag ban) and Heller (AWB).

Quite true! The way I see it, getting cert granted will be the milestone. Those activist justices that don't want to be in the position of essentially trying to "creatively justify" their positions... against standing SC precedence... are going to fight like heck to make sure these cases never make it out of conference.

The standard at which they must examine the laws of the land doesn't leave much ambiguity. What they "could" do though, that's a little scary, is redefine things. IE., redefine the common use test to only include "common use IN self defense". That would open the floodgates for universal firearm bans.

 

[Stomper]

Do NOT count on lawyers wearing black robes to save you.

 

[The Heretic]

This is when we find out if any of the "conservative" justices really possess any cojones... or, as we suspect, they are not really true supporters of the 2A who will be content to just keep staling, let the status quo continue on (while still coming up with inexplicable rulings on other things that get the liberals all spooled up, like abortion).

Is anyone else getting the sense that none of the justices (aside from maybe Clarence, who seems to be MIA these days) desires their legacy to be as the court that truly defined the Second Amendment, cemented the right to keep and bear arms -- and that deep down, maybe they really believe in such things as "assault weapons bans" and magazine capacity restrictions?

I think that most justices are not libertarian and more aligned with "precedent" than constitutional originality. All that is needed to go down the slippery slope is to find a court with a majority that allows something "reasonable" for the government, and then keep going down that path.

An example of that was found very early in our history with the second POTUS (Adams) and the Congress at the time; the Alien and Sedition acts passed by Congress and signed by Adams. You can't find a clearer violation of the First Amendment and not 7 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, making criticism of the government a crime punishable by imprisonment - and the government did not hesitate to throw people in prison.

As time went on, our government, legislative, executive and judicial branches, have slowly usurped power in the guise of reasonable necessity.

The SCOTUS and other courts, have over time laid down "precedent" that goes against the principles that this country was founded on.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think that most justices are not libertarian and more aligned with "precedent" than constitutional originality. All that is needed to go down the slippery slope is to find a court with a majority that allows something "reasonable" for the government, and then keep going down that path.

An example of that was found very early in our history with the second POTUS (Adams) and the Congress at the time; the Alien and Sedition acts passed by Congress and signed by Adams. You can't find a clearer violation of the First Amendment and not 7 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, making criticism of the government a crime punishable by imprisonment - and the government did not hesitate to throw people in prison.

As time went on, our government, legislative, executive and judicial branches, have slowly usurped power in the guise of reasonable necessity.

The SCOTUS and other courts, have over time laid down "precedent" that goes against the principles that this country was founded on.

That principle sort of, is what I consider "institutionalist", and not "originalist" that is why I stated that there are only two "originalists"/"textualists" (Alito and Thomas) on the SCOTUS and at least 4 "institutionalists" (Roberts +the 3 "liberal" Justices) who all seem to behave in the manner of "how can we interpret the Constitution to best fit the laws/regulations?" Edit. And "if the laws/regulations still violate the Constitution no matter how much we interpret it, it's unconstitutional"

 

[bradsteen]

Not holding my breath, but good to see some potential for positive changes.

 

[Yarome]

I was just thinking. 2 of the cases set for conference are FPC's. The so called "assault weapon" ban case and the combined "assault weapon" and mag ban case.

If granted cert that will make 3 FPC cases being argued before SCOTUS this session.

If folks aren't already an FPC member, now may be a really good time to consider membership. For those already members... it may be time to think about digging just a little deeper into our wallets and contribute to the enormous costs involved carrying these 3 cases before SCOTUS.

Join the FPC Grassroots Army

We need to build our grassroots army in order to take on the tyrannical ATF, the Biden Admin, and anti-2A bureaucrats across the country. Join today!

secure.firearmspolicy.org

Just sayin.... Support those that are being effective in the fight to preserve our rights.

 

[Yarome]

SCOTUS announced today they are denying cert on the Maryland case (Bianchi)... for now. Allowing the case to progress in the 4th, which seems to be dragging their feet. Not unexpected since that's been par for the course in similar cases, "not yet ripe".

Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Maryland ban on rifles known as assault weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined, for now, to hear a challenge to a Maryland law banning certain semi-automatic firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons. The court did…

www.kget.com

There is still some hope for having a so called "assault weapon" ban case heard this session though. They made no comment one way or the other on the Illinois case.

 

[L84Cabo]

Yarome summarized this but Four Boxes goes over it in a bit more detail. It's unfortunate but to be expected given the court's preference to deal with fully settled cases and these were all interlocatory appeals. The court clearly signaled this in their decision today.

Mark also thinks that they may reject the Illinois case as well, but that one or more of the justices might write a dissent to that rejection to smack down the lower court's finding since it was abysmal and probably the most glaringly incorrect of the AWB cases.

I understand the justices not wanting to take cases that aren't finished. But then again we are dealing with lower court judges who are either clearly corrupt or clearly incompetent. And a right delayed is a right denied. The notion that the wheels of justice turn slowly is both frustrating and outright infuriating. And particularly when there is corruption afoot and the SCOTUS absolutely has the power to step in and resolve this. The risk is also enormous, given that we could have a justice die or get hit by a bus or something before this plays out, and then the makeup of the court changes and we get screwed...again.