Potential new SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases?

Aim1 said:

What are the potential 2nd Amendment cases we have that could be up for the Supreme Court after she is confirmed?

Click to expand...

I too would like to see what cases are in the pipeline.

Considering the long timeline in getting cases before the Court, it would be late next year, at the earliest, before we could get a decision. By that time, the whole calculus could change.

The Supreme Court makes available a docket seach tool so you can look for cases in the pipeline by keyword. Here's a link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

A YouTube channel called "Guns and Gadgets" is my favorite source for close following of nationwide Second Amendment developments on both the state and federal levels.

I knew a girl like that once, HSO. Waaaay bad karma.




Plus those crystal balls always short circuit.

Aim1 said:

Some good 2nd Amendment cases got denied cert recently and if I'm correct they don't get another shot at being heard by SCOTUS.

But I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, they don't.

There's only one case they didn't deny - Rodriguez v. San Jose - and it's scheduled for conference on Tuesday, which may or may not take place and get rescheduled. I'm guessing it will be rescheduled.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1057.html

If they conference, the results will show up on the "Orders of the Court" page, link here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt

The really important potential cases will involve "assault weapon" bans and/or hi-cap magazine bans. The rest (such as carry outside the home, or non-violent felons owning guns) are just nibbling around the edges. The future of the RKBA will revolve around the types of weapons we are allowed to own.

I would disagree. Carry outside the home is as important as the AWB cases. If SD is one of the core issues in the 2nd Amendment cases, as indicated by Heller, being able to defend yourself in a significant part of your life (outside of your home) is equally important. One of our rules is to have a gun. If you can't, the issue is moot.

The AWB is core to the defense against tyranny argument. Both are equal.



HPA, SBR, NFA, non-violent felons are of lesser importance, I agree.

AlexanderA said:

The really important potential cases will involve "assault weapon" bans and/or hi-cap magazine bans. ...<snip>... The future of the RKBA will revolve around the types of weapons we are allowed to own.

Click to expand...

We should not and cannot ALLOW or SETTLE for it to revolve around this issue. Weapon TYPE is immaterial to the intent of the Second Amendment and to the inherent rights it recognizes. Making it about weapon type distorts, degrades and infringes upon that intent and those rights. Making it about type is a form of "framing the terms of the debate", and whoever gets to frame the terms of the debate is capable of determining its outcome. Therefore settling for a debate about whether or not the Second Amendment permits the keeping and bearing of assault weapons is to determine an outcome that dooms it eventually if that outcome is an interpretation to prohibit such weapons by type.

wiscoaster said:

Weapon TYPE is immaterial to the intent of the Second Amendment and to the inherent rights it recognizes. Making it about weapon type distorts, degrades and infringes upon that intent and those rights.

Click to expand...

Weapon type is very material. If AWB's are allowed to stand, we're at the top of a slippery slope. There's logically nothing to stop further type bans, until we're limited to single-shots or even non-cartridge guns.

GEM said:

One of our rules is to have a gun. If you can't, the issue is moot.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what I'm trying to say, but in a different way. If all you can have is a single-shot pistol, carrying it for self defense is hardly better than carrying a knife, considering that the criminals will be as well armed as they are now. Self defense implies at least parity in weapons with the criminals. Type bans can effectively disarm you, regardless of whether you can theoretically carry your limited weapons outside the home.

This is why fighting AWB's has to be priority #1.

Unfortunately, Wiscoaster, the AWB debate has practical consequences that impact folks. So theoretical objections are just fine as the guns become useless.

Overturning those bans are important in many states and to prevent future bans. You can debate theory all you want when:

1. Owning the gun is a felony
2. You can't use them for hunting, competition or self-defense.

Thus, what is your suggestion to stop this as Congress has not taken up legislation to prevent. The only recourse seems to be the courts. Making speeches - so what.

This reminds me of folks who objected to the shall issue laws when they were proposed. NO, ALL WE NEED IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

In some states, zealots testified against such laws and prevented passage and delayed the laws in some cases.

That denied folks the ability to protect themselves for THEORY!

Take the actions you can. If you want a great theoretical victory later, well, go for it.

AlexanderA said:

Weapon type is very material. If AWB's are allowed to stand, we're at the top of a slippery slope. There's logically nothing to stop further type bans, until we're limited to single-shots or even non-cartridge guns....This is why fighting AWB's has to be priority #1.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Weapon type is immaterial to the meaning and intent of the Amendment. Weapon type is crucially material to the debate about its limitations. The debate has to be framed in terms of the right to keep and bear ARMS, with the definition of arms not limited by original intent or by current arms technology.

GEM said:

Thus, what is your suggestion to stop this as Congress has not taken up legislation to prevent. The only recourse seems to be the courts.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It is only the Supreme Court that can decide this is. They have the Constitutional authority, right and duty to do so. Let us hope they are given the opportunity to take it and then that they seize it. The Court has affirmed there are limits on our Constitutional rights. This is a right they have not sufficiently defined what that limit is, and so states and Congress try to usurp that authority to define it in ways that temporary political advantage determines.

I'm hoping this bodes well for some of the FOID cases here in Illinois. I know one is waiting in the IL Supreme Court's docket for a decision, has been for awhile now. If that one goes the wrong way, I very much see it going to SCOTUS on appeal. I imagine the IL justices who have delayed it will probably regret doing so now that there's a good chance their decision gets overturned.

I still have no idea how the FOID Act has stood as long as it has. There's precedent on the books that it is unconstitutional to charge for the exercise of a constiutional right, which is exactly what the FOID Act does.

AlexanderA said:

The really important potential cases will involve "assault weapon" bans and/or hi-cap magazine bans. The rest (such as carry outside the home, or non-violent felons owning guns) are just nibbling around the edges. The future of the RKBA will revolve around the types of weapons we are allowed to own.

Click to expand...

I disagree, in part. I think we're looking at three major cases. Case #1 will be a ruling on the prohibition of ownership or purchase of large classes of firearms and/or accoutrements. Case #2 will be a ruling on the legality of "may or may not issue" CCW. Case #3 will be a ruling on attempts to harass people into abandoning their RKBA by making the process very difficult.

BigBL87 said:

.
I still have no idea how the FOID Act has stood as long as it has. There's precedent on the books that it is unconstitutional to charge for the exercise of a constiutional right, which is exactly what the FOID Act does.

Click to expand...

It has stood because no court that matters has ruled against it.

The problem I see with attacking the FOID card on the basis of its cost is that at a dollar a year the cost is so low that it is hard to argue that it abridges the right in any meaningful way. And all the state would have to do is change the cost to zero and you would still have the FOID card but you would save a dollar a year.

ilbob said:

It has stood because no court that matters has ruled against it.

The problem I see with attacking the FOID card on the basis of its cost is that at a dollar a year the cost is so low that it is hard to argue that it abridges the right in any meaningful way. And all the state would have to do is change the cost to zero and you would still have the FOID card but you would save a dollar a year.

Click to expand...

True, but charging is still charging and I guarantee it discourages at least some people.

And if they couldn't charge for it, it would honestly have no reason to exist. ALL that it is is a money making scheme for the state. If you can pass a NICS background check, 99% of the time you're going to be FOID eligible.

Combine not making money on it with the system already being overwhelmed (state law says they have 30 days to issue, it's commonly taking 60-90 days or more) and there being a lawsuit over the delays as well, I think it would be hard for it to survive.

Maybe we can get back to the--shall not be infringed---part that nobody seems to read or take into account.

Omaha-BeenGlockin said:

Maybe we can get back to the--shall not be infringed---part that nobody seems to read or take into account.

Click to expand...

The courts have done very little to protect our rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I don't know why anybody would be surprised that the second amendment would be no more protected than the others. About the only amendment that the courts have not gutted entirely is the third amendment, and that is solely because it has not come up. If it comes up, I fully expect that the courts would gut it as well.

Hopefully if we get a majority of strict constructionists the above will no longer be a problem.

wiscoaster said:

Hopefully if we get a majority of strict constructionists the above will no longer be a problem.

Click to expand...

One can always hope but history has showing that judges for the most part vote in favor of government power over liberty the vast majority of the time.

Mike OTDP said:

I disagree, in part. I think we're looking at three major cases. Case #1 will be a ruling on the prohibition of ownership or purchase of large classes of firearms and/or accoutrements. Case #2 will be a ruling on the legality of "may or may not issue" CCW. Case #3 will be a ruling on attempts to harass people into abandoning their RKBA by making the process very difficult.

Click to expand...

Interesting way to analyze the situation. I don't necessarily disagree with you. Let's remember that ACB, having clerked for Justice Scalia, the author of the Heller opinion, is likely to be a persuasive voice in the 2A deliberations.

Unfortunately, all three of the issues that you identify would probably pass muster under Heller. For the RKBA side to make any headway, the Court would have to go beyond Heller. To do that, the majority Justices would have to overcome their inherent judicial conservatism (the opposite of judicial activism). And you have Roberts tipping the scales in favor of do-nothing judicial conservatism. I'm cautiously pessimistic.

AlexanderA said:

... For the RKBA side to make any headway, the Court would have to go beyond Heller. To do that, the majority Justices would have to overcome their inherent judicial conservatism (the opposite of judicial activism). And you have Roberts tipping the scales in favor of do-nothing judicial conservatism. ...

Click to expand...

I agree w/ your analysis and your observation that it's the Chief Justice who's the primary do-nothing influence.

wiscoaster said:

I agree w/ your analysis and your observation that it's the Chief Justice who's the primary do-nothing influence.

Click to expand...

Well, we'll find out who our friends are on the Court, that's for sure. Scalia was an actual hands-on "gun person." But he was constrained by having to placate Justice Kennedy, so maybe the Heller decision did not go as far as he would have liked it to go. Of the remaining members of the Court, I think Alito is maybe the only "gun person." For the others, the 2nd Amendment is mainly an academic exercise. So if Chief Justice Roberts tells them to trim their sails on the 2nd (for the sake of preserving the Court as an institution, which is his highest priority), they're likely to go along with him.