Tag: Supreme Court

When Courts Collide

Based on the above four cases, the cert conflict could not be more dramatic. Range and Williams allow as-applied challenges to the felon ban. Jackson and Hunt categorically allow no challenge to the ban. Since felons are the overwhelming majority of persons prosecuted under § 922(g), resolution by the Supreme Court is direly needed. [More]

The fiction, of course, being that truly dangerous felons require any court’s sanction, and that a higher law they won’t acknowledge doesn’t nonetheless hold true…

[Via Michael G]

SCOTUS Order List

Check in at 9:30 a.m. Eastern to see if they picked the cases we want. [More]

UPDATES

I’m scrolling through this as we speak. Look it over yourself and tell me if my old eyes are missing anything.

CERTIORARI DENIED:

24-309 GRAY, GABRIEL, ET AL. V. JENNINGS, ATT’Y GEN. DE, ET AL.

24-373 MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, ET AL. V. MOORE, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.

Still looking for Snope and Ocean State Tactical…did I misunderstand they would be considered in conference? Guess I’ll have to wait for lawyers to explain what’s happening.

UPDATE

[T]he most important Second Amendment cases of Snope, the AR-15 ban case out of Maryland, and Ocean State Tactical the magazine Ban case out of Rhode Island, are both alive and well before the Supreme Court… [Watch]

So again, we wait.

[Via Jess]

Supreme Court Watch

For conference:

Snope v Brown fka Bianchi v Frosh – MD AWB; Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island – Magazine ban; Gray v Jennings – 2A irreparable injury; Maryland Shall Issue v Moore – Handgun Licenses

Per the SCOTUS website:

  • The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
  • The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 13. 

If more becomes known before then I’ll try to check in and update. And you feel free to inform the rest of us in comments.

It’s Showtime!

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a third Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, B&L Productions v. Newsom, for conference on Friday, Jan. 24. The case challenges California’s statutes which ban gun shows on state-owned property. Because the gun shows at issue are not only opportunities to view and purchase firearms, but also for like-minded individuals to assemble and share ideas, the case presents questions about both the First and Second Amendments. [More]

Having followed this issue for many years, I say apathetic gun show attendees own their share of the mess they’ve allowed. They’re no doubt part of the majority that don’t contribute to efforts like this to clean up that mess.

Breeding Contempt

You might be asking, can a lawmaker be held in contempt? The answer is absolutely. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizes federal courts to punish contempt by fine or imprisonment. [More]

So who will prosecute that?

Thing is, I suspect speech and debate privileges will preclude going after politicians, and it’s the laws and its enforcers that need to be gone after. Any lawyers competent in this area care to weigh in?

[Via 1Gat]

Request to Expedite

The 2A Attorneys in Gray v. Jennings Delaware “assault weapon” ban litigation have filed a submission to SCOTUS as the three AR-15/Magazine ban cases continue their move through the Court’s consideration process. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses. [Watch]

That’s a counterpoint to this.

January sounds like the month we’ll learn either way if this and related cases will be considered/consolidated or punted again.

[Via Jess]

It Depends Upon What the Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be’ Is

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. [More]

The state that inflicted Joe Biden onto the political scene says banning semiautomatic rifles and magazines doesn’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Mark W. Smith ties it in with related cases SCOTUS is considering. And I continue to be suspicious of relying on “common use.”

[Via Jess]

Up for Discussion

The case of Snope v. Brown has been distributed for the Supreme Court’s conference for December 13. Previously styled Bianchi v. Brown, the cert petition challenges Maryland’s “assault weapon” prohibition which the Fourth Circuit upheld en banc earlier this year… Now for a deeper dive. [More]

Stephen Halbrook confirms, among other things, what a f-ing idiot “Reagan Republican” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III is.

[Via Jess]

Asked and Answered

But the Second Amendment isn’t an inkblot on the Constitution. It means something. Can that possibly not include a right to own the gun that claims to be America’s bestselling rifle? [More]

Is it an arm?

Then the right of the people to keep and bear it shall not be infringed.

Anyone who says otherwise is just a liar.

[Via Jess]

An Uncommon Question

I. There is a long-running and intractable dispute in the lower courts over whether the Second Amendment allows the government to ban arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens. II. Heller clearly teaches that arms in common use by law-abiding citizens cannot be banned. III. This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve this dispute. [More]

What’s to stop “common use” from allowing future developments to be banned?

[Via Jess]

Wormtongues Gone Wild

Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to consider the constitutionality of Maryland’s assault weapons ban where (1) that ban is consistent with this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”; (2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons that were invented for offensive purposes and were ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent civilians,” Pet. App. 69a; and (3) there is no need to resolve a conflict among the lower courts? [More]

Translation: Tyrannical Maryland Democrats want the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to the state’s willingness to imprison and/or kill citizens for defying unconstitutional diktats and claiming their birthrights.

[Via Jess]

Desperation Looks Like This

Dems at War Over Secret SCOTUS Plot to Oust Sotomayor NOT AGAIN!Having spectacularly failed to get one woman elected to a top job, the Democratic Party is at odds over whether to push another woman out. [More]

This should be blockable if all Republicans stick together and militant Democrats let their feelings trump all.

Punt, Pass and Kick

Instead of taking on the next frontier of firearms regulations, the justices tossed a highly anticipated review of prohibitions on gun ownership for felons. [More]

The distancing from Bruen continues.

As noted before, the only thing the Supreme Court has to do to let infringements stand is… nothing.

[Via Antigone]

No Constitutional Reason Justifies Not Recognizing 2A Rights of Young Adults

Anyone who tells you 18-to-20-year-olds are not fully enfranchised citizens entitled to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment is a liar and an enabler of tyranny. [More]

Sending back what should have been a no-brainer makes me wonder which SCOTUS members we’ve been told are 2A-friendly are getting ready to disappoint…

So Much for Holding These Truths to Be Self-Evident…

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to a Pennsylvania law barring people 18- to 20-years-old from carrying guns back to the lower courts for another look in light of last term’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the justices attempted to provide guidance for courts reviewing Second Amendment challenges to restrictions on gun rights. [More]

I know the wheels of justice grind slowly and we have procedures for a reason, but come on...

[Via Jess]

The Truth Behind the Garland v. VanDerStok “Ghost Gun” Case

This is not the first time Justice Barrett has departed from conservative views on the Second Amendment, values she represented herself as a staunch supporter of when she was nominated to the Supreme Court by then President Donald Trump. [More]

Except she didn’t, the gun groups did.

As with all SCOTUS confirmation hearings, they don’t ask the tough questions needed to elicit unequivocal answers.

As noted when cautioning against rubber stamping Gorsuch:

Typically in judicial confirmation hearings, nominees have been able to rely on an “out” giving them a pass on answering specific questions… Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation — for legitimate reasons, including not having studied and evaluated all the particulars, evidence and precedents against the “supreme Law of the Land,” — there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.

Gun owners may be paying the price for that… again.

Mayor’s Assassination Shows Mexican Government Can Only Operate with Consent of Cartels

Mexican prohibitionists ignoring the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to effect U.S. citizen disarmament are creatures that can only operate at the behest of cartel monsters who decapitate to terrorize. [More]

Who thinks the Framers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that animals from a failed narco-terrorist state abetted by treasonous domestic subversives could render it toothless through lawfare?

Daily Defense Redux

David Codrea and Mark break down today’s SCOTUS “Ghost Gun” Scotus Oral Arguments [Listen]

What’s that recurring line from Star Wars?

And from Michael G:

Most Justices Seem Inclined To Uphold the ATF’s New Restrictions on Homemade Firearms [More]

Let’s hope our feelings are misplaced.

No. She Can’t. Not in This Context. She’s Not a Gunsmith.

Based on results, ATF can’t, either.

She’s just wondering if “ghost guns” can also fire 800 rounds a second.

It’s OK to say “she,” isn’t it?

Verified by MonsterInsights