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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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.
Bruen methodology and application as increasingly applied by District/Circuit courts albeit inconsistently documented in this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...l-this-apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/page-7

That is what I anticipate the Supreme Court to clarify while expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms and accessories in the next and coming terms.

And realistically, we will likely get 6-3, even 5-4 rulings for these cases but nonetheless, win for gun rights so Second Amendment doesn't become "second class right" as promised by justice Thomas and supported by justices Alito and Kavanaugh, even Roberts (I am sure we know how "Originalist" justice Gorsuch will vote).
 
Last edited:
Bruen methodology and application as increasingly applied by District/Circuit courts albeit inconsistently....

So why not just treat it as they did Caetano? If the supreme court truly viewed these applications of Bruen as incorrect or inconsistent within the various circuits, doing so would be the path of least resistance. So while you may be seeing this from the perspective of making it ripe for review, I'm seeing it more as acceptance from the high court that Bruen is being thoughtfully applied, especially in adherence with the 8-1 majority of Rahimi.

I'm unconvinced there's some master plan at work to suddenly, and definitively empower the 2A, by issuing a knock-out decision the way they did with Dobbs. I'm seeing a court less and less interested in cleaning up the messiness of Bruen, not one chomping at the bit to set all things right in the universe. Rahimi provided a snapshot of the justices' commitment to Bruen, and it's not very inspiring.
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR

So while you may be seeing this from the perspective of making it ripe for review, I'm seeing it more as acceptance from the high court that Bruen is being thoughtfully applied
Because justices said so and I already answered you in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12955909

From court rulings:​
  • Justice Roberts stated in Rahimi for majority opinion, "... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers." (Page 7)
  • More from Rahimi ruling, "In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Page 4)
  • And even justice Jackson conceded that Bruen methodology is now "binding law" of the land, "This case tests ... Bruen ... Bruen is now binding law. Today’s decision fairly applies that precedent"
  • Even CA attorneys at the 9th Circuit admitted, "We cannot ban all semi-auto weapons and Heller makes that clear" after judge Benitez gave them extra time to come up with "best" evidence of historical tradition evidence of firearm ban and they could not (And hence why anti-2A courts are now using other arguments like Military service/usage and "dangerous and unusual" arguments because they KNOW CA attorneys tried to find historical evidence to meet Bruen methodology but could not).
  • And judge Benitez ruled in Miller case (CA AW ban), "State was directed to create a list of relevant laws regulating arms dating from the time of the Second Amendment ... The Court has reviewed every law cited in the State’s list ... State cannot find a historic regulation of firearms ... Bruen teaches that a state’s burden is to identify a historical tradition of firearm regulation" (Page 23) ... there were no outright prohibitions on keeping or possessing guns. No laws of any kind. Based on a close review of the State’s law list and the Court’s own analysis, there are no Founding-era categorical bans on firearms in this nation’s history. Though it is the State’s burden, even after having been offered a clear opportunity to do so, the State has not identified any law, anywhere, at any time, between 1791 and 1868 that prohibited simple possession of a gun (Page 28) ... If the state cannot so prove, the challenged prohibition must be struck down. The presumption in favor of rightfully possessing a citizen’s arm was made during the adoption of the Second Amendment.” Guns that fall under the California definition of an “assault weapon” are presumptively covered by the text of the Second Amendment. (Page 71)
  • As to "in common use", that's been well established and even justice Sotomayor in Cargill ruling stated semi-auto magazine fed rifles are "commonly available, semiautomatic rifles"

And it is clear many District and Circuit courts have, as stated by justice Roberts and other justices, improperly applied Bruen methodology - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12935895

As to Circuit Courts not following previous Supreme Court rulings properly, justice Kavanaugh wrote this in 2020 and Bruen ruling tossed out decades long application of two-step approach and now "text, history, tradition" with burden shifting to states/government is "binding law" of the land - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-4#post-12927459
And I share justice Alito's concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon
Then judge Kavanaugh dissented in Heller 2 ... and wrote AR-15s are clearly protected arms and cannot be banned under the Heller in common use test. Now as JUSTICE Kavanaugh, I can imagine his dissent opinion now becoming Supreme Court majority opinion.​
And justice Thomas wrote this in Harrel v Raoul statement - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-19#post-12934358
if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”​
And "properly" applying "binding law" of the land of Bruen methodology, judge Benitez already did the hard work with CA attorneys researching every applicable regulation/law but failed to come up with historical analogous evidence - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-19#post-12934410
State was directed to create a list of relevant laws regulating arms ... The Court has reviewed every law cited in the State’s list ... Because the State cannot find a historic regulation of firearms ... Because the State did not succeed in justifying its sweeping ban and dispossession mandate with a relevantly similar historical analogue, California Penal Code § 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety

Some states/courts have even openly defied Bruen ruling like NY CCIA and constitutional attorney Mark Smith discusses that in detail in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/post-12939568

Now that Bruen methodology is "binding law" of the land and burden has shifted to the states/government so it is now states and government that have to come up with historical tradition evidence of regulation/disarming "We the People" and they can't.

Why?

Judge Benitez in Miller/Duncan cases tasked CA attorneys, even giving them extra time to come up with "best" examples of historical tradition evidence and they could not (Believe me, if they could, they would have provided them to judge Benitez 😁).

And now everyone knows there is no historical analogue of regulation/categorical ban of magazine fed semi-auto rifles so they are "trying" to use other arguments and this is likely what the Supreme Court will clarify, IMHO.
 
Do you see the pattern though? The cases Benitez presided over here in my home town, are the outliers. We hold those/his opinions in high regard because we agree with him. But the body of cases that have proceeded, especially since Rahimi, have taken the "not trapped in amber" part to a tortured extreme. For instance, the bowie knife example I excerpted. Without thoughtfully looking at it, it seems the balance of cases in the lower courts is shifted towards the other side, not our own. A good portion of the lower courts are saying "X is good enough to satisfy Bruen" and allow bad laws to stand. That imbalance doesn't bode well for review. Correct me here if I'm wrong, but Benitez hasn't issued any decisions in the shadow of Rahimi. Having one truly reliable judge on our side doesn't negate the countless defeats on the other side.

If the supreme court takes an AWB/magazine case head on in this session, I would be very surprised. I'll owe you a soda if they do though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEM
For instance, the bowie knife example I excerpted. Without thoughtfully looking at it, it seems the balance of cases in the lower courts is shifted towards the other side, not our own.
I think antis resorted to knife ban argument because they KNEW there was no founding period ban on "firearms" and knife ban was closest weapons ban they could come up with.

I guess we will see if the Supreme Court will take the review of cases to clarify if knife ban argument is analogous enough to meet Bruen's historical analogue requirement.
 
So why not just treat it as they did Caetano? If the supreme court truly viewed these applications of Bruen as incorrect or inconsistent within the various circuits, doing so would be the path of least resistance. So while you may be seeing this from the perspective of making it ripe for review, I'm seeing it more as acceptance from the high court that Bruen is being thoughtfully applied, especially in adherence with the 8-1 majority of Rahimi.

I'm unconvinced there's some master plan at work to suddenly, and definitively empower the 2A, by issuing a knock-out decision the way they did with Dobbs. I'm seeing a court less and less interested in cleaning up the messiness of Bruen, not one chomping at the bit to set all things right in the universe. Rahimi provided a snapshot of the justices' commitment to Bruen, and it's not very inspiring.
I think the more likely plan was not to give a knock out blow. Give the crowd a little something with Bruen that will keep the issues hot in the lower courts with controversy. That helps the conversative justices' politics. If you don't they act that way, one is naive to say the least. Since Alito and Thomas' wives are full blown conservative activists, don't tell me that they are not up on the issues. So if they knocked out the major laws, they take the issue away from conservative = send a check for the RKBA mantra. Given that some of them straight out lied on Dobbs, they are just political animals.

I don't think we will see major relief in the near future. If the administration changes, justices may change and Heller and Bruen will follow Roe into the void of stare decisis.
 
Update to Harrel v Raoul (And affecting cases pertaining to Protect Illinois Communities Act: NAGR v Naperville, Harrel v Raoul, Barnett v Raoul, GOA v Raoul, Herrera v Raoul, Langley v Kelly) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12938195

FPC WIN: Federal Court Strikes Down Illinois “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Bans - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-assault-weapon-and-magazine-bans

Federal District Court Judge Stephen P. McGlynn has ruled in the FPC Law case of Harrel v. Raoul that the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, is unconstitutional. The 168-page decision, which followed a full bench trial, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/harrel.​
After considering all of the evidence and arguments, the “Court must take action as justice demands,” the Court said in its decision. “PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined. The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.” However, the Court also stayed the injunction for 30 days to allow the State time to appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.​
“We are gratified that the Court properly found that these bans violate the constitutionally protected rights of Illinois residents and visitors. As we clearly showed at trial, PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test that conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to fight forward until we eliminate every unconstitutional ban like this throughout the country. Further, we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon address bans like these in our Snope v. Brown case out of Maryland, which is pending the Court’s decision on our petition for certiorari. Gun owners across the United States should be confident that the ultimate victory on these issues is coming, likely soon.”​
 
Last edited:
Update to Harrel v Raoul (And affecting cases pertaining to Protect Illinois Communities Act: NAGR v Naperville, Harrel v Raoul, Barnett v Raoul, GOA v Raoul, Herrera v Raoul, Langley v Kelly) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-13023968

Key excerpts from the ruling highlighting Bruen methodology compliance of "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to state/government including "military use/military grade"/dissenting arguments/opinions considerations directed by 7th Circuit on remand:
The United States Supreme Court has issued several landmark decisions that seemingly answered several important questions about the right to keep and bear arms ... this Court seeks to understand what exactly it means for a firearm to be “dangerous,” “unusual,” “bearable,” “in common use,” in “dual use,” and/or a “military weapon.”​
... 1. "Bearable" ... this Court defines bearable as: a weapon that an individual carries for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. (Pages 57-61)​
... 2. "Dangerous" ... this Court defines dangerous as: bearable arms that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors. Once more, it is the lack of the ability to discriminately control the arm and its discharged projectiles that makes it dangerous, not its rate of fire (Pages 61-67)​
... 3. "Unusual" ... Therefore, considering the above, unusual is defined as: an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive. Unusual would also include those weapons that are not designed for successful self-defense in neutralizing an opponent, but rather are primarily deployed to inflict cruel, brutal, or inhumane suffering on a person. (Pages 67-70)​
... 4. "Common Use" ... this Court defines common use as presumptively encompassing: any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise “dangerous and unusual.” Moreover, for the sake of clarity, the Court will also include essential features (like magazines) and nonessential features that increase operability, accuracy, or safety (like the various attachments prohibited by PICA) as items that are presumptively in common use. (Pages 70-75)​
... "Dual Use" ... the Court holds that “dual use” refers to weapons that, while predominantly useful in military contexts, are also useful for civilian offensive or defensive use in confrontation such that they would be covered by the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (Page 112)​
[“military use” refers to weapons that are selected, procured, tested, and issued to military members for use in combat. (Page 111)]​
[“military-grade” ... issued to the military for use in combat. (Page 112)]​
... The purpose of the Second Amendment is not crime reduction. Its focus is self-defense and the ability of each citizen to be able to either repel an attack by one or more adversaries or to offensively engage an adversary or adversaries to protect one self and/or others ... In an emergent situation, the accuracy, safety, ease-of-use, and magazine capacity of an individual defense weapon may literally be the difference between life or death of the civilian and his or her family members ... civilian defenders may be infirm, disabled, or small-statured such that they would not qualify as being “combat ready.” (Page 77-79)​
... the right to keep and bear arms applies to any and all lawful purposes, not just self-defense in the home. (Page 79)​
... Consider scenarios in which the choice of a specific weapon would confer a tactical advantage and could mean the difference between survival, death, or serious injury ... Consider an additional scenario where a citizen is called upon to defend himself or herself at home during a surprise assault by multiple armed aggressors. (Page 80)​
... The Second Amendment guarantees that one may keep and bear arms for self-defense. Thus, a civilian defender has the advantage of forethought and the ability to plan and prepare for various “what if” scenarios. We have the right to select arms that may give us tactical advantages against an adversary ... One should also consider known disadvantages for confrontation, such as lack of mobility, when selecting arms, magazines, attachments, and configurations ... To limit civilians’ choice of arms would tip the scale in favor of the aggressors, who already will likely have various tactical advantages, including the element of surprise. (Page 84-86)​
... The Court is also not convinced that weapons like the AR-15 and its relatives are “dangerous and unusual.” Considering the Court’s definition of “dangerous,” it is clear that a semiautomatic rifle does not suffer from the lack of control as is inherent to machineguns and sawed-off shotguns. Additionally, the AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles do not appear to be “unusual” ... While they have features that closely resemble their military counterparts, they do not operate or utilize technology sufficient to call them “unusual” in the sense that they are not widely used in the United States. As discussed above, it appears, instead, that the rifles and other weapons banned by PICA are in common use when considering the volume of sales over the past 20 years (Page 102)​
... Seventh Circuit ... was comfortable with grouping semiautomatic “assault weapons” or “modern sporting rifles” into broad categories for ease of analysis. Additionally, the Government has argued that AR-type weapons, AK-type weapons, specific semiautomatic shotguns, and associated “submachineguns” share similar features. Thus, it is apropos [appropriate/relevant] for this Court to consider all of these “modern sporting rifles” and their relatives together. (Page 103)​
... Regarding thirty-round large-capacity magazines and the various attachments (e.g., pistol grips, flash suppressors, and the like) at issue here, this Court holds that these devices are also in common use and have legitimate self-defense purposes. For magazines, every round matters in a self-defense scenario - reloading takes away significant time during which the defender can be injured or wounded ... in a critical self-defense scenario, more rounds equals ahigher chance of survival. (Page 104)​
... Similarly, the attachments at issue make a weapon safer, easier to aim, and easier to fire, features that are well-suited for self-defense. This is especially relevant to an individual who is infirm, small-statured, or has limited firearms training. In a self-defense scenario, every second matters and this Court will not fault individuals who are not able-bodied for choosing weapons that enable them to more carefully defend themselves and their families. (Page 105)​
... Moreover, stating that military-grade weapons cannot be used by civilians because they need to be reserved for the militia is not a cogent [convincing] argument ... commercially available AR-15’s external similarity to the M16 rifle and M4 carbine belies its nature, as its lack of burst or fully automatic fire fundamentally renders it a different weapon. Thus, while they may be similar externally, they are not the same weapon and have vastly different functions ... Therefore, the Court holds that “military use” refers to weapons that are selected, procured, tested, and issued to military members for use in combat. With this in mind, none of the weapons, magazines, or attachment prohibited by PICA can be called “military-grade” since they were not issued to the military for use in combat ... a clear example is the semiautomatic handguns that are useful in military service yet are also “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” Clearly, even though handguns are useful and are used in military service, they are clearly protected by the Second Amendment (Page 110-112)​
... While the Government argues that the lethality of AR-type weapons is sufficient reason to restrict them, those same features that increase “lethality” also increase the accuracy, portability, and safety of the weapons for use by variously abled individuals. The Second Amendment clearly cannot imply that those who are elderly, disabled, or small-statured must only choose a handgun or pump-action shotgun for self-dense when other options (like AR-15s) will enable them to defend their homes more easily, safely, and securely. The same is true for operator-friendly features that protect the defender’s hearing, vision, and allow for ease of use. As discussed supra, large-capacity magazines may also be the difference between life and death for a person defending him or herself in the home. This Court also holds that thirty-round magazines are not predominately useful in military service and, even if they were, dual use has clearly been demonstrated given their usefulness for individual self-defense and their ubiquity. (Page 113)​

... Moreover, the Court is not convinced by the Government’s argument that AR type weapons must be banned because it is easy to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to a fully automatic weapon via the use of a bump stock or the like.​
... Based on the above, the Court holds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate that the AR-15 and other AR-style weapons are protected “Arms” within the definition advanced by the Seventh Circuit in Friedman and Bevis. Additionally, the Court holds that the various other “assault weapons” proscribed by PICA (including AK-type weapons, various semiautomatic shotguns, and what the Government calls “submachineguns”) are also “Arms,” as are the thirty-round large capacity magazines and various firearm attachments designated by PICA. To reiterate, all of these weapons, magazines, and attachments are bearable, not dangerous or unusual, and are in common use. Moreover, they are all possessed for lawful self-defense purposes, are either not predominately useful for military service or are dual-use items, and are not possessed for unlawful purposes. (Page 117)​
... II. History and Tradition
In Bruen, we are instructed to search our history so that we may evaluate efforts to regulate and restrict arms. Such a directive has caused courts and litigants to embark on a search of old laws that may serve as some historical analogue that may pair well with a present-day effort to restrict or even criminalize possession or purchase of firearms commonly held and used today ... the Court turns to the parties’ arguments in order to determine where PICA fits in the history and tradition of laws restricting firearms. After an exhaustive review of the statutes and arguments provided by the Government, the Court holds that the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation does not support a statute as far-reaching as PICA. Put another way, the Government’s arguments do not satisfactorily answer the “how” and “why” questions required by Bruen - most of the statutes it cites were prohibitions on concealed carry or on discharging weapons, not the outright prohibition of such weapons entirely. (Page 151)​
Therefore, the Court must take action as justice demands. PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined. The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense. The Court will stay enforcement of the permanent injunction for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.​
CONCLUSION​
For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Langley Plaintiffs’ Counts IV and VI is GRANTED.​
Most importantly, considering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.​
Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction is GRANTED. The State of Illinois is hereby ENJOINED from the enforcement of PICA’s criminal penalties in accordance with 720 ILL. COMP.STAT. §§ 5/24-1(a)(14)–(16) (bump stocks and assault weapons); 5/24-1.9(a)–(h)(assault weapons and attachments); and 5/24-1.10(a)–(h) (large-capacity magazines)against all Illinois citizens, effective immediately. As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines. Therefore, the State of Illinois is ENJOINED from enforcing the firearm registration requirements and penalties associated with entering false information on the endorsement affidavit for non-exempt weapons,magazines, and attachments previously required to be registered in accordance with 430 ILL. COMP. STAT. 65/4.1. This permanent injunction is STAYED for thirty (30)days. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.​
IT IS SO ORDERED.​
 
Last edited:
My normal SF Reflex

Unusual: 'Last Enemy' H. Beam Piper.
The Akor-Neb timeline banned "area weapons of indiscriminate effect." Gas in that plot.

Bearable: Don't remember the title
A planet banned any but man-portable weapons. Result, gene engineered weight lifter infantry.
 
...said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to fight forward until we eliminate every unconstitutional ban like this throughout the country. Further, we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon address bans like these in our Snope v. Brown case out of Maryland, which is pending the Court’s decision on our petition for certiorari. Gun owners across the United States should be confident that the ultimate victory on these issues is coming, likely soon.

Setting aside the good news, statements like the above are irresponsible. I like Brandon, but when he writes copy, it comes off in an almost Orwellian tone. Oceania will win the war with Eurasia VERY SOON!!!.

What happens if the supremes deny cert to all these cases?
 
Here is the problem. The 2nd says no infringements on the right of the people to bear arms. None of the stuff constantly entered into court by either side should be relevant. This is why this is a constant battle. None of that other than all gun control violates the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
 
I support this thread and OP by posting updates that pertain to "... turning point for AW/magazine ban".

This thread discussion IS NOT about continuation/perpetuation of AW/magazine ban.

If you want to discuss virtues of AW/magazine ban or why ban will continue, you are free to start a new thread. :)
 
Last edited:
The turning point will be *if* the scotus takes a relevant case and hands down a definitive decision. That's germane to the topic, which is punctuated with a question mark. I'm speculating they won't based on vibes given off from the most recent 2A decision they offered in Rahimi. There's no need for a separate thread for that.
 
The turning point will be *if* the scotus takes a relevant case and hands down a definitive decision. That's germane to the topic, which is punctuated with a question mark.

I'm speculating they won't based on vibes given off from the most recent 2A decision they offered in Rahimi.
I think many people mistake Rahimi ruling as being anti-2A when it actually was a test case for Bruen methodology as stated by justice Jackson as now "binding law of the land" to apply for future 2A cases. This reality has been discussed in this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12975159

As to whether the Supreme Court will take the relevant cases and rule definitively, justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito and even Roberts all pointed out lower courts misunderstanding Bruen methodology and need for clarification. See post #581 for direct quotes - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12990080

Justice Thomas stated once again in Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a "second class right" and deserves same treatment as other amendments. When denying cert for PICA AW/magazine ban case due to being interlocutory in nature, stated the case should be taken for review after merits decision so as to prevent Second Amendment becoming "second class right".

In recent ruling against Illinois' PICA, judge McGlynn stated the following on pages 122-129 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-13023981

The Second Amendment is a time-honored civil right that has been enshrined in our Constitution for centuries; it deserves at least the same respect as befitting its status in the Bill of Rights. Even so, it has consistently been treated as a “second class right.” (McDonald)​
“Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights" (Citing Heller)​
... Rahimi once more provides a template for historical analysis ... In his concurrence in Rahimi, Justice Kavanaugh provides a blueprint for this Court’s analysis of the Second Amendment ... He argues that this “kind of balancing approach to constitutional interpretation departs from what Framers ... actually done across the constitutional landscape for the last two centuries."​
... Justice Kavanaugh writes that “the historical approach is superior to judicial policy making ... the Court did not have occasion to recognize the Second Amendment’s individual right until recently,” Justice Kavanaugh writes that even though “[d]eciding constitutional cases in a still-developing area of this Court’s jurisprudence ..."​
As demonstrated for other amendments like the First Amendment "modern" applications of email/texting, Supreme Court has been continuing to expand Second Amendment protection to apply to "modern" situations and applications. As already expressed by majority justices, it's time to review "modern" magazine fed semi-auto rifle protection under the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Gee. All this silly “going down the rabbit hole” about “modern” and not “modern” and “common use” and yadda yadda is like arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

What will we ever do when AR’s are no longer “modern”, which they actually aren’t, and get a phase plasma 40 watt rifle, or energy weapons.

If only, if only the Founders and writers of the Constitution used a word that covered all of it, something so simple so as to be idiot proof, so future generations wouldn’t be so confused. Oh wait, I know the perfect word!….

“Arms”
 
I'm betting Alito and Thomas don't have the votes for a clear, definitive statement. Given their shenanigans, the other justices aren't particular cowed by their seniority and wisdom. They've become Grandpa at the Thanksgiving table. Roberts and Amy certainly don't bow to them. Neither does Kavanagh. The 'amber' statement says it all.
 
Why I think the Supreme Court will grant cert to Snope v Brown.

SCOTUS has already granted cert to this case once (it was Bianchi v Frosh then). They vacated the lower court ruling that the ban was constitutional and remanded it back to the Fourth Circuit with instructions to reconsider it in light of Bruen.

The circuit court has finally done so, with a response that twisted, distorted and quoted Heller, Bruen and Caetano out of context until they were unrecognizable, changing "in common use for lawful purposes" to "useful for self defense ONLY",

The Fourth Circuit changed "A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. (Caetano v Mass.) [emphasis in the original]" to "excessively dangerous", defined using the interest balancing approach banned in Bruen.

The Fourth Circuit changed “It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.” (Heller) to "...the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense."

The real issue here is not just AW bans. It's whether an inferior court can completely disregard Supreme Court decisions they don't agree with. The Supreme Court has to overturn the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Snope v Brown if the word "Supreme" is going to mean anything.
 
I would like the court to explain why anything other than a ruling that all gun control violates the Constitution is allowed to stand.
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR.

Judge McGlynn in his recent ruling did a deep dive into dissecting Bruen methodology (while clearly defining terms) and comprehensively examined historic tradition "evidence" state government presented for their argument, even considering dissenting arguments/opinions of judges/justices over the centuries as remanded by the 7th Circuit - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-13023981

In conjunction, judge Benitez also requested comprehensive review of AW/magazine ban historic tradition "evidence" by CA state attorneys where he gave them extra time to come up with "best" supporting evidence - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12880375

What judges Benitez and McGlynn did in reaching their final merits decisions was to lay the foundation for complying with Bruen methodology, which is now "binding law of the land" to be used for all 2A cases. Judge McGlynn's exhaustive review of historic tradition evidence, including dissenting arguments/opinions greatly hamper whether ban on AW/magazine meet Bruen's "Text, history and tradition" requirements, even for more recent "military use/military grade" arguments.

Both judges Benitez and McGlynn concluded they do not and clearly stated state/government's burden did not produce historic tradition evidence.

With these comprehensive/exhaustive researched merits decisions, I do believe Supreme Court majority justices would now choose to review various AW/magazine cases in upcoming terms.

It will be telling what Supreme Court decides to do with Delaware AW/magazine ban in Gray v Jennings and we may know more later this month.

Anthony Miranda's update on Supreme Court review of AW/magazine ban cases

Mark Smith's break down of judge McGlynn's ruling in Harrel v Raoul
 
Last edited:
*if* the scotus takes a relevant case and hands down a definitive decision ... I'm speculating they won't
As to whether the Supreme Court will take the relevant cases and rule definitively, justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito and even Roberts all pointed out lower courts misunderstanding Bruen methodology and need for clarification.
And their direct quotes are listed in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...oint-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/post-12990080
 
I think many people mistake Rahimi ruling as being anti-2A when it actually was a test case for Bruen methodology as stated by justice Jackson as now "binding law of the land" to apply for future 2A cases.

There's no mistake on my part. It doesn't have to be an "anti-2A" decision for it to be a bad case. The necessity of Rahimi being the vehicle to establish "binding law..." is an apologetic take on a bad case, because plenty of other good cases with likely favorable outcomes would've sufficed. This was a squandered opportunity.

But worse, you're ignoring the lingering effects that Rahimi had on Bruen, weakening the dependence of text, history and tradition, with a multitude of lower court decisions substituting direct historical analogues with much vaguer accounts of generalized laws being sufficient to uphold modern ones. And reading ahead here, you're cherry-picking from cases where the 2A got five-star treatment, and occurred years before Rahimi was even initiated. You're also taking Jackson's words out of context again. There's more to what she said, which I've quoted here several times. The superficial view looks rosy, but only if we ignore all the other warts, of which there are plenty. I'm not trying to be a total pessimist, but when I see FPC saying that victory is right within our grasp, I figure it's either to drive fundraising or it's legitimate naivete.

We're on the right side of history but nothing in all this mess of litigation indicates big changes in the time frame of "soon".
 
I'm betting Alito and Thomas don't have the votes for a clear, definitive statement. Given their shenanigans, the other justices aren't particular cowed by their seniority and wisdom. They've become Grandpa at the Thanksgiving table. Roberts and Amy certainly don't bow to them. Neither does Kavanagh. The 'amber' statement says it all.

The lower courts have taken the "not trapped in amber" mindset and run with it like there's no tomorrow.
If scotus doesn't take an AWB/mag cap case and produce an unambiguous, binary, yes/no, decision within the next few sessions, the body of contrary case law will continue to outsize the scant examples of the good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top