Are Anti's attempting to drown SCOTUS in 2nd Amendment cases?

[Aim1]

The Anti's know that SCOTUS only takes about 100 cases a year and has only taken a 2nd Amendment case once in the last 10 years.


Could the anti's be attempting to drown SCOTUS in 2nd Amendment cases knowing that they most likely would only take 1 case?



Currently we have the bumpstock, pistol brace, a AWB and high capacity magazines case all vying for attention at SCOTUS.


I believe the AWB + High-Capacity Magazine case is by far the most important but the antis could get SCOTUS to take one of the less important cases in hopes of AWB and High-Capacity Magazine stay in place in some states.


Thoughts?

Am I wrong?

 

[Buzznrose]

I think the current SCOTUS is inclined to take more 2A cases in light of the reactions and flagrant disregard of their latest ruling.

 

[hoodfu]

When the Bruen decision was coming, they held onto 3 of them and remanded all of them back to the lower court to be reconsidered after Bruen. It's pretty obvious how they should be decided, so we'll have to see if the lower courts do the needful or keep resisting. Seeing as those big AWB/magazine cases have already been acted upon by SCOTUS, there's little chance they'd be denied cert or just decided without needing to go that far by them.

 

[GEM]

Equally important are the challenges to the NYS CCIA as that law completely abolishes useful concealed carry. Other states are tooling up to enact similar laws. So practically, Bruen got rid of a need to carry reason. Whoopee! The state just took out all carry in the state except the middle of the road.

I have said before that Bruen and the remands were ill conceived - in the weeds - majesty of the court mistakes.

They should have decided the remanded cases cleanly. No need to play up and down, time wasting games to school the lower courts.

As many have pointed out, Bruen and the previous decision did not give clear definitions of sensitive places in terms of clear statements. Nor were acceptable standards for permissible weapons given. Bruen also unleashed a war of history mining which states and anti courts are wielding against the RKBA. There was no need for that.

For example, Clarence's statement on banning Manhattan was seen as a clear statement on locale bans. NO, it wasn't. The opt in rules didn't ban geography, it just took out almost every useful business. He was out thought.

Of course, certain weapons could be banned as hinted at in Heller and Bruen - that's in eyes of states and courts. They could have said: No semiautomatic weapons of any configuration can be banned nor can any magazine of any capacity be banned. That's it - no crap about the 1790s.

They could have said: No locale can be banned from carry unless there is a highly technical reason that makes the gun itself dangerous, such as the gun in the MRI. Or specific highly dangerous locales such as a prison or an airliner in flight (this takes some explanation for another time).

This view is not just mine but other folks and law reviews.

That Clarence and his buddies didn't let the TROs in NYS stand because of the majesty of the lower courts is absolute BS. A right, existing for many years, was taken away. Let the state make its case while the right is re-instated. Total BS, IMHO.

There are analyses that stronger actions were unacceptable to Roberts and Kavanaugh.

It might take years to unwind - in that time, personnel changes might flip the court. Stare decisis is dead as we now.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is the most 2A-friendly Court in history. If the antis are trying to get more gun cases before the Court, they're in for a rude surprise.

 

[GEM]

That remains to be seen if the states' counters are quickly disposed of. Heller was supposed to be wonderful and it didn't stop the states' AWB. Freeing up domestic abusers (debatable) isn't a major victory. It was supposed to free carry in NYS and carry disappeared for an unpredictable time. If they had supported the TROs, I might agree that they were doing a good thing. Yes, Clarence and Alito said blah, blah - but blah, blah doesn't get rid of a felony conviction which is the current on the ground risk.

 

[Aim1]

This is the most 2A-friendly Court in history. If the antis are trying to get more gun cases before the Court, they're in for a rude surprise.

How many more would they really take before Thomas's retirement, 1 to 3 at the most?



Then the makeup of the court could change.

 

[GEM]

That's the risk. Clarence is in the range of just dropping dead and Kavanaugh, Roberts, a new one and the liberal justices and Heller, Bruen, McDonald might just be toast or terribly weakened in application. The overturn of Roe means that precedent, stare decisis is meaningless in the era of a partisan court acting as a mini-legislature body.

 

[CapnMac]

There is an interesting argument afoot that the antis are seeing a change in legal momentum, away from gun control being "acceptable." So, the various left-leaning legislatures are trying to get in as many anti-gun bills, no matter how stupid, to try and "keep" some vestiges from them in the rubble of higher Court decisions.

They appear to be sore afraid that the entire underpinnings of their racist and divisive and classist laws will be swept away entire. To be as untenable as laws raising a monarchy in the US.

 

[dogtown tom]

The Anti's know that SCOTUS only takes about 100 cases a year and has only taken a 2nd Amendment case once in the last 10 years.


Could the anti's be attempting to drown SCOTUS in 2nd Amendment cases knowing that they most likely would only take 1 case?

Who do you think filed those cases?

Currently we have the bumpstock, pistol brace, a AWB and high capacity magazines case all vying for attention at SCOTUS.

None of which were lawsuits filed by "antis".

Am I wrong?

Yes.

What the "Anti's" did was at the legislative level (passing restrictive state laws) or administratively (ATF using its regulatory authority).
Second Amendment advocates filed suit to stop that.

The last thing the anti's want right now is another gun rights case being in front of this court.

 

[Aim1]

Who do you think filed those cases?




None of which were lawsuits filed by "antis".




Yes.

What the "Anti's" did was at the legislative level (passing restrictive state laws) or administratively (ATF using its regulatory authority).
Second Amendment advocates filed suit to stop that.

The last thing the anti's want right now is another gun rights case being in front of this court.

The anti's only need to ban everything and then the Pro-2nd Amendment folks file the lawsuits at cost for them.


The 2nd part is that only a minute number maybe even none will be granted cert by SCOTUS and thus they lose when courts like the 9th rule against 2nd Amendment advocates.

 

[jdc1244]

Are Anti's attempting to drown SCOTUS in 2nd Amendment cases?

No.

Actually, it’s those hostile to firearm regulatory measures.

Unhappy with the slow evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence, Thomas’ intent with the ‘historical tradition’ test is to facilitate confusion and conflict among the district and appellate courts.

That confusion and conflict will result in cases becoming ‘ripe’ for review at a much quicker pace – state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions in particular.

 

[PapaG]

Add in the Radically unconstitutional “assault” weapons bans in IL, NM, and CO, and they’ll have plenty to do.