SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

[Jim Watson]

Bigger problem is that the next White House occupant will most certainly appoint some Justices

The DNC has already proposed term limits, loyalty oaths, and an increase in the number of chairs.

 

[LiveLife]

Look at how long the Duncan case out of California has been going; it’s around ten years at this point.

Complaint was filed on 5/17/17 so over 7 years to go through district court, 9th Circuit, Supreme Court, GVR down to 9th Circuit, back down to district court and back up to 9th Circuit - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #529 regarding Bianchi v Frosh now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12956141

SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack explains the path of the Bianchi case. Next step: Petition for Cert with SCOTUS.

Maryland AWB case update

SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack explains the path of the Bianchi case. Next step: Petition for Cert with SCOTUS.Donate or Join Second Amendment Fo...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #487 regarding Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12939025

President of CRPA, Chuck Michel, attorney for Duncan case discuss updates - https://crpa.org/

Will Duncan v. Bonta inevitably go to SCOTUS? Is the 9th Circuit getting ready to rule on the Duncan case? Chuck Michel updates us on whats going on.

00:00 - Intro
01:32 - Lets revisit Boland v. Bonta
04:32 - Whats going on with Rhode v. Bonta
06:42 - Why is other cases hinging on Duncan v. Bonta
07:50 - Lets talk about May v. Bonta
08:33 - Will Duncan v. Bonta go to SCOTUS
13:15 - Final thoughts

Will Duncan v. Bonta inevitably go to SCOTUS?

Will Duncan v. Bonta inevitably go to SCOTUS? Is the 9th Circuit getting ready to rule on the Duncan case? Chuck Michel updates us on whats going on.Join CRP...

www.youtube.com

 

[Basura Blanca]

So at this juncture, it really doesn't matter much whether we win at district/circuit court level as some judges obviously expressed their defiance to Supreme Court rulings and sooner majority justices get to rule and "clarify" these cases, sooner we can EXPAND Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories.

What the lower courts are saying *does* matter though, as those decisions set precedents in the meantime, to which other cases must adhere. This has the effect of stalling progress because it creates potholes that we need to avoid in advancing other controversies to be litigated. Aside from that, the U.S. supreme court is trending towards taking less cases per session. At best, we might get one.

With Rahimi, we got a taste for what the justices were willing to do with Bruen and it wasn't a favorable outcome. Thomas's lone dissent was out there on a tiny island, while 88% of justices greenlit a watered down acceptance for "text, history and tradition". This has greatly empowered the anti-rights groups. The court cracked the door just a bit, instructing that to satisfy Bruen, it's not necessary to have a like-for-like analogue to an existing law. The other side is already building on that weakness.

These are all signs to tread lightly, and yet we're carrying a gigantic package of cases.

 

[Basura Blanca]

It's why we need more than just a court ruling. If you go back to the civil rights era, the most important decision didn't come from any court - it was Eisenhower deploying the 101st Airborne to impose Brown v Board of Education by force of arms. No more legal games, obey or die

Shifting public opinion is what ultimately led to positive outcomes and compliance. It became less and less socially acceptable to be on the wrong side of history. The same thing isn't happening with the 2A, or at least not at a reasonable enough clip to move the needle much.

Having a bunch of favorable case law would be nice, but it's not a real win if the vast majority sees it as us ramming our position down everyone's throats. And unfortunately, that's where we're at right now because the general public is ignorant of the details. So imagine if a quarter of the effort that went into litigation was diverted (or added) to some outreach. We don't need to change hearts and minds of the rabidly anti-gun crowd. We just need to light a fire under those with a slightly sympathetic point of view. That's not a lofty goal. It's exactly how other contemporary social movements got traction for their cause.

 

[LiveLife]

What the lower courts are saying *does* matter though, as those decisions set precedents in the meantime, to which other cases must adhere.

No, when lower courts are obviously ruling unconstitutionally and certainly openly "defying" Supreme Court rulings, especially when arguing around and against Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings as demonstrated by recent lower court decisions post Bruen, it is the Supreme Court as highest court of the land to set precedent for ALL lower courts to follow. Not the other way around.

This is how the founders framed the government with separation of powers with final say going to the Supreme Court because they KNEW state law makers and executives would write and pass unconstitutional laws, for the Supreme Court to overrule in defense of "We the People" under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Here are some examples:

For decades, even the Supreme Court followed the two step approach of interest balancing of greater community good over individual rights. But in Bruen, the decades long practice and precedent of two step approach was THROWN OUT by the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen and tested/reaffirmed in Rahimi.

How could the Supreme Court IGNORE decades long practice of various courts and rulings that set precedent and go straight to "text, history and tradition" and force the government/states to carry the burden of proving historical evidence of gun regulation?

Well, the Supreme Court DID because the founders set up the separation of powers as such.

Oh yes, the legislative and executive branches had a fit and in response, promised hundreds of new "unconstitutional" laws to be written and passed in response. No problem, as the Supreme Court could simply rule them all unconstitutional and lawsuits were filed en mass in various state/federal courts and here we are at Supreme Court with many of these cases.

Another example is the elimination of Chevron Deference. For decades, judicial branch "allowed" the practice of administrative agencies of executive branch to interpret ambiguous laws but in Loper, Supreme Court tossed out what was in practice for decades out the window and took back the power of interpretation.

How could the Supreme Court ignore decades of "allowed" practice and do an about-face against all the case rulings?

Well, the Supreme Court DID because they could.

These rulings demonstrate to the executive and legislative branches that the Supreme Court is the final backstop for "We the People" and is the highest court of the land to set precedents, not the lower courts.

With Rahimi, we got a taste for what the justices were willing to do with Bruen and it wasn't a favorable outcome. Thomas's lone dissent was out there on a tiny island, while 88% of justices greenlit a watered down acceptance for "text, history and tradition".

That's what it may appear to be on the surface but as Mark Smith wrote in the law review article for Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Rahimi was the test case for Bruen methodology and just as justice Jackson conceded, Bruen methodology passed the test and stands as the "binding law" of the land - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-5#post-12949242

"I just released a law review article explaining why the last major 2nd Amendment Supreme Court decision (Rahimi) was actually a win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ... Rahimi Affirms Heller/Bruen Framework"​

 

[Basura Blanca]

No, when lower courts are obviously ruling unconstitutionally and certainly openly "defying" Supreme Court rulings, especially when arguing around and against Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings as demonstrated by recent lower court decisions post Bruen, it is the Supreme Court as highest court of the land to set precedent for ALL lower courts to follow. Not the other way around.

Right. But the operative phrase in my post was "in the meantime", which of course means if and until the Supreme Court settles all these controversies, the lower courts are indeed setting precedent that can't be dismissed. We don't get to just pick and choose the ones favorable to the cause and ignore the ones that said otherwise.

 

[LiveLife]

Right. But the operative phrase in my post was "in the meantime", which of course means if and until the Supreme Court settles all these controversies, the lower courts are indeed setting precedent that can't be dismissed.

Yes, that is true indeed.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh now Snope v Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12964536

SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack explains the path of the Bianchi case. Next step: Petition for Cert with SCOTUS.

Maryland AWB case update

SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack explains the path of the Bianchi case. Next step: Petition for Cert with SCOTUS.Donate or Join Second Amendment Fo...

www.youtube.com

SAF Petitions Supreme Court for Certiorari in Maryland Rifle Ban - https://saf.org/saf-petitions-supreme-court-for-certiorari-in-maryland-rifle-ban/

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in its continuing challenge of a ban on modern semiautomatic rifles in the state of Maryland, arguing that high court review is necessary to ensure the Second Amendment is “not truncated into a limited right.”​

​

SAF is joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and a private citizen, David Snope. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh.​

​

The petition was filed after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that modern semiautomatic rifles — commonly misidentified as “assault weapons” — are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are “too similar” to a fully-automatic military rifle known as the M16. SAF and its partners contend this reasoning “is becoming a commonplace misapplication” of Supreme Court precedents established by the 2008 Heller ruling, 2010 McDonald decision and 2022 Bruen ruling.​

​

“The Fourth Circuit, as well as other federal courts, are attempting to flip the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling on its head,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They are essentially arguing the arms protected by the Second Amendment are limited only to certain state-approved firearms, which would make it no right at all, but a government-regulated privilege. This is the third time we have petitioned the high court in this case.”​

​

“Certiorari is required in this case,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “to correct an increasingly widespread misunderstanding of the Supreme Court precedent, and the Second Amendment, itself. The specific type of firearm in question is commonly owned across the country, placing it well within the scope of the Second Amendment.”​

​

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Take Up “Assault Weapon” Ban Lawsuit - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-asks-supreme-court-to-take-up-assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court in Snope v. Brown (formerly Bianchi v. Frosh), its lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” requesting review of the Fourth Circuit’s highly flawed en banc (full court) decision. The petition can be viewed at AWBcase.com.​

​

“As promised, we have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s terrible decision without delay. As a petition from a final judgment with the best Second Amendment litigators in the world at the helm, this case is an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to resolve exceptionally important issues. Through this case, the Court can and should make explicit how lower courts should address unconstitutional bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and similar laws,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs.​

​

“For years, lower courts have contorted the Supreme Court’s precedents and wrongly held that the Second Amendment does not protect semiautomatic firearms. But these weapons are common numerically, categorically, and jurisdictionally, popular for a wide range of lawful purposes from self-defense to sport,” Combs went on. “There is no legitimate basis for the Fourth Circuit to have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles in the United States are not ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment. The Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers and they should do so in this case. This immoral and abusive gun control regime must end here.”​

​

“Under Bruen and Heller, this case should have been very straightforward. Indeed, the dissent’s resolution of the case could be summarized in two sentences: Petitioners ‘seek to own weapons that are indisputably “Arms” within the plain text of the Second Amendment’,” the Second Amendment advocates argued in the petition. But, “Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”​

​

“The popularity of the AR-15 is among the most well-evidenced, and frequently discussed, facts about firearms in the country. There are, by almost all estimates, considerably more modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 in the United States than there are Ford F-150s, America’s most popular automobile. And that is in spite of the laws, like Maryland’s here, that prohibit tens of millions of Americans from some of our most populous states from acquiring them,” the petition explained.​

​

The Snope case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by FPC members as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Gray v Jennings (DE AW ban) and Graham v Jennings (DE Magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12854278

Cases were consolidated on 3/6/23 - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...678127614/DSSA_v_DSHS_52_Order.pdf?1678127614

FPC Petitions Supreme Court to Fix Circuit Split on Second Amendment Injury in Preliminary Injunction Analysis - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...ent-injury-in-preliminary-injunction-analysis

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to address an important circuit split and establish that an infringement of Second Amendment protected rights for any period of time is necessarily irreparable injury. This petition in both Gray v. Jennings and Graham v. Jennings, two consolidated FPC cases that challenge Delaware’s bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines, comes from a misguided Third Circuit opinion holding that infringements of Second Amendment protected rights are not equal to abridgments under the First Amendment. The petition can be viewed at FPClaw.org.​

​

“In Bruen, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Second Amendment should not be treated less favorably than other Bill of Rights guarantees,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But some circuit courts have continued to treat our sacred right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right. We are asking the Supreme Court to establish a clear and binding rule that places Second Amendment protections on the same footing as First Amendment guarantees for the purposes of injunctive relief.”​

​

“The panel below acknowledged that this is the rule that applies under the First Amendment—in step with every other federal court of appeals—but it somehow concluded that it does not apply to the Second Amendment,” argues the petition. “It accordingly declined to enjoin Delaware’s bans on common firearms and magazines (which the State dubs ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity magazines’) without even inquiring into whether those bans are likely unconstitutional, based on Petitioners’ failure to establish an irreparable harm other than the loss of their Second Amendment rights.”​

​

FPC is joined in the litigation by individual FPC members as well as the Second Amendment Foundation.​

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation are seeking cert in a major 2A case dealing with preliminary injunction standards. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses

0:00 Major SCOTUS Petition Filed​

0:58 This Is A BIG DEAL...​

2:51 SCOTUS Will Probably Grant Cert​

4:22 Four Elements to Get a Preliminary Injunction & 2A Specifics​

7:35 How To Measure Harm in 2A Cases & How This Helps Us...​

15:25 Thank You!​

MAJOR SCOTUS NEWS: THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING...

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation are seeking cert in a major 2A case dealing with preliminary injunction standards. Mark Smith, ...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss justices observing new phenomenon of Kamala Harris defending shooting intruder with her gun on Oprah show and WSJ article on new trend of Liberal gun ownership increasing (And I bet Kamala is using larger than 10 round capacity magazines in her defensive gun ... Adding to the supporting argument of "in common use" ):

0:00 2A Big 2A Stories​

1:16 Every Justice is Looking at This...​

2:00 Kamala's Interview With Oprah​

2:50 More Liberals Owning Guns​

3:50 Why This Is Great For 2A​

7:40 Great WSJ Article Quotes & Israel Example...​

10:50 This is Crucial For Our Society...​

13:40 Thank You!​

BREAKING 2A NEWS: THIS IS GREAT FOR 2A...

America's Private Self-Defense Gun Culture just took a giant leap forward this week. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains. Sources:https://www.wsj.com/us-new...

www.youtube.com

 

[Mk-211]

That whole Ocra interview was pandering, nothing else.

No one is going to pay attention to what she said about being a gun owner. That and the fact that she said she would shoot someone in her house.

What they heard was, background checks, red flag laws and AW bans!

Kamala Harris Panders To Oprah Saying If Someone Breaks Into My House They Getting Shot

Kamala Harris just did a two-hour self-aggrandizing worship session disguised as a town hall with Oprah Winfrey where she said this…Harris began the exchange...

youtu.be

 

[Basura Blanca]

2:51 SCOTUS Will Probably Grant Cert​

​

This guy's typical pedantry on this specific isn't very convincing. I get his point, but I'm not seeing a "probably will grant cert" here anymore than the other cases where the same claim is made. The supreme court isn't going to take three dozen 2A cases. It's just not going to happen.

And for anyone wanting to read the petition without digging through all the FPC copy fluff, this is the direct link. I'm not trying to be disparaging here, but some of this pro 2A punditry needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Basura Blanca]

That whole Ocra interview was pandering, nothing else.

Any presidential candidate bringing up the gun issue is always a red herring. Doesn't matter the perceived direction they lean on the matter. Guns are a state issue for the most part. With the exception (to a degree) of war powers, presidents don't have unilateral pull on any issue, particularly domestic hot buttons like the 2A.

Also, anyone with a lifetime 24hr security detail isn't going to be shooting intruders.

 

[armoredman]

This guy's typical pedantry on this specific isn't very convincing. I get his point, but I'm not seeing a "probably will grant cert" here anymore than the other cases where the same claim is made. The supreme court isn't going to take three dozen 2A cases. It's just not going to happen.

And for anyone wanting to read the petition without digging through all the FPC copy fluff, this is the direct link. I'm not trying to be disparaging here, but some of this pro 2A punditry needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Since he said 50%, and he is a member of the Supreme Court BAR, I'd assume he might have some insights. I think he has actually argued cases before SCOTUS.
I am hoping this goes through and is decided in our favor.

 

[Jim Watson]

Also, anyone with a lifetime 24hr security detail isn't going to be shooting intruders.

I’m thinking of Mr Pelosi getting clobbered.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Since he said 50%, and he is a member of the Supreme Court BAR, I'd assume he might have some insights. I think he has actually argued cases before SCOTUS.
I am hoping this goes through and is decided in our favor.

It's a matter of numbers. The court ignores roughly 99% of the cases submitted for review.

 

[LiveLife]

We are seeing NRA-ILA becoming more active, supporting FPC and FPC endorsing NRA-ILA (For this life-long NRA supporter, I am finally glad to see NRA-ILA back on the saddle again ... still with cautious skepticism ... But we are at war with the antis so we need all the allies to come together to put up a strong front. ) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12989181


Adding to Bianchi v Frosh now Snope v Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12974333

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to “Assault Weapons” Ban - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ourt-to-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban

Today, the NRA filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a challenge to Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban.​

​

The State of Maryland bans the sale and possession of several common semiautomatic rifles—including the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban, holding that the prohibited rifles are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.​

​

NRA’s brief argues that the Fourth Circuit contradicted Supreme Court precedent, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Heller held that common arms cannot be banned. Rather, only “dangerous and unusual” arms may be banned. But the Fourth Circuit rejected what it called Heller’s “ill-conceived popularity test” that “leads to absurd consequences,” and replaced it with a test directly contrary to Heller. NRA’s brief encourages the Supreme Court to grant the Petition for Certiorari to reaffirm its precedents and restore the right of Americans to possess common weapons​

​

We invite you to read the NRA’s brief, filed in Snope v. Brown, here.​

 

[lilguy]

This court is our last chance. If we can’t get these bans overturned with 6 conservative justices then its done.

 

[Jim Watson]

Oh, Kamala can fix that

"Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices"

 

[LiveLife]

Oh, Kamala can fix that

"Sweeping bill to overhaul Supreme Court would add six justices"

IF it actually happens. Public sentiment seems to have shifted and now most are against increasing number of justices.

Besides, court packing could go both ways, you know. Instead of 6-3, it could end up 10-5.

So instead of majority "Originalist" justices ruling for DECADES, majority "Originalist" justices could rule for GENERATiONS.

Only reason why it's being mentioned at all is because antis KNOW what's coming in the way of Supreme Court rulings expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories (Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, even Roberts stated and promised that's what they will do) to undo what antis have worked hard for decades.

Thanos snap/Blip/Decimation by majority "Originalist" justices and much of anti's decades of hard work ... GONE, just like that as demonstrated by:

• Bruen - Decades of interest balancing greater community/society's good over minority group/individual right like mass shooting, although tragic, is not relevant for protecting 2A rights of minority groups/individuals who are all included in "We the People" as ruled in Rahimi and soon in Range and Duarte (No, majority mob rule cannot impose on the Bill of Rights protection). And just like that, decades of precedents vanished and replaced by "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the states/government that increasing number of District/Circuit courts are now following.
• Loper - Decades of Chevron Deference where executive branch/administrative agencies interpreted law and precedents and just like that, taken back to judicial branch.
• Cargill - Executive branch/administrative agency (ATF) overreach expanding Congress definition of "machinegun" and just like that, ATF power of expanding law taken away by the Supreme Court and bump stocks are legal.
• And much, much more ...

And we have a bunch of 2A cases lined up for Supreme Court's next term.

I am sure the antis are literally foaming at the mouths raging mad about their decades of hard work and money spent going down the toilet.

Increasing number of justices? Sure why not, antis have nothing to loose as writing is already on the wall as to what WILL happen in the next term and future terms of Supreme Court moving forward.

Long live the Republic and founders' framing of nation with Electoral College and equal representation Senate.

 

[Basura Blanca]

The disaster that was Rahimi was the last test case for the 2A in front of the high court and correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't have a 6-3 lock on the decision. The supreme court takes less than a hundred cases per session, out of hundred times that in petitions submitted. We continue to go hard on this gamble.

 

[LiveLife]

I have a feeling the Supreme Court in the next term will review AW/magazine ban case(s) and other carry/gun/accessories cases with likely 6-3 decisions to clarify Bruen methodology because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right"; and continue to expand Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories (Like how First Amendment protection expanded to "modern" forms of communication/free speech).

 

[Basura Blanca]

The supreme court *already* clarified Bruen with Rahimi by loosening the grip on TH&T, and the lower courts have taken that clarification and run with it since, much to our disadvantage.

What indicators are you seeing that they want to take an entirely different case for the purpose of providing even more clarity to Bruen that wasn't covered already? The majority opinion of Rahimi instructs that "the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791" which is precisely what lower courts have done with it. In other words, the lower courts for the most part are following the supreme court's advice.

Do I want to be wrong about this and do I hope the court takes every single 2A case thrown at it for cert, and rules 9-0 in our favor? Sure. But I'm a realist too.