Tag: Supreme Court

Will Present Legal Arguments Undermine Future Efforts to Restore Second Amendment?

It’s taking care of our immediate needs. However, the Founders bequeathed us a constitution intended “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If this is all we concern ourselves with, what are we bequeathing to them? Semiautomatic firearm technology that’s already 140 years old…? In a world where technological developments and breakthroughs are being introduced seemingly exponentially, what new “terrible implements” will become standard issue in the next 140 years? [More]

In avoiding legal traps today, care must be taken not to catch ourselves in a more dangerous one tomorrow.

SCOTUS on Wrong House Raids

Any court watchers wanna clarify what’s going on here?

[Via WiscoDave]

UPDATE

The FBI Wrongly Raided This Family’s Home. Now the Supreme Court Will Hear Their Case. [More]

[Via Michael G]

Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

Federal Appeals Judge ATTACKS Ninth Circuit for Gaming 2nd Amendment Cases [Watch]

We talked about this butterfly knife/2A case here.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke sounds like a perfect SCOTUS replacement.

Sotomayor ain’t exactly looking peppy these days…

[Via Jess]

Docket Teasers

David Snope, et al., Petitioners v. Anthony G. Brown, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al… Jan 21 2025 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025. [More]

Ditto for Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island.

Will they hear either? Can they hear one on semiautos without hearing the other on magazines?

And if we tune in tomorrow, will they again tell us to come back Monday to find out?

Original Intent

There is a case now being litigated in front of the United States Supreme Court brought by the same lawyers and organization that represented none other than Michael Cargill in the Cargill case dealing with the bumpstock, a big victory for the2 Second Amendment over the ATF there, but this case involves the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial but it’s just as important to win as many other cases involving the Supreme Court and the Constitution [Watch]

If we start applying the unambiguous language understood by the Founders the house of cards will collapse, and that scares the hell out of the controllers.

Also see NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Hear Case to Overturn “Petty-Offense Exception” to Jury-Trial Right.

[Via Jess]

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]