Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LiveLife, May 8, 2022.
True. Because we as a nation have become tribal and driven by agendas.
Considering the untimely delays and extra expenses forced on IL-ANNOY gun owners through both the FOID and the CC process, we hope that this decision throws a "bucket of cold water" on officials that are part of these processes. It is particularly bad for applicants in and around "Crook" County (Chicago) as so many of them get hit with holds, many generated by Tom Dart's department, so many that the phrase "being darted" has arisen. The saddest part is that these objections have been found to be baseless but it takes more time and effort to find & provide the additional information the review board requires.
Exactly. Unfortunately not everyone feels that way. It really messes with their cognitive dissonance to see someone doing something they themselves may not like or agree with, even if it’s not harming them.
Supreme Court's ruling on gun rights will not impact Illinois - https://www.dancaulkins.com/supreme_court_s_ruling_on_gun_rights_will_not_impact_illinois
"It's not going to have any effect on our concealed carry laws," Rep. Caulkins said.
It's a sentiment that Schmidgall, who teaches concealed carry classes, agrees with.
"I was hoping they'd do something, write something a little different that would help us out," Schmidgall said. "Maybe get rid of the FOID card or something."
Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves ...
That’s significant since there are cases pending before the Supreme Court ... Duncan v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on standard capacity magazines ... Ninth Circuit ... court found that California’s law “simply cannot pass constitutional muster, whether analyzed under strict or immediate scrutiny.”
... There’s also Miller v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). The Ninth Circuit ... granted ... an indefinite motion to stay a decision made by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, who found the ban unconstitutional ... similar challenge, Rupp. v. Bonta, that was also stayed at the Ninth Circuit.
All will now be subject to the Supreme Court’s explicit rejection of interest-weighing tests.
Following cases at the Supreme Court level and pending at the 9th Circuit are impacted by the Supreme Court NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling and four cases on hold may receive decision to grant or deny the review of cases perhaps coming week:
Cases that have been on hold pending Bruen decision:
Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon case)
Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case)
ANJRPC v Grewal (NJ magazine ban case)
Young v Hawaii (HI open carry case)
Assault weapon cases at 9th Circuit level:
Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon case)
Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon)
And it didn't take a week as Supreme Court sent the cases back to lower courts for further review - https://lawnews.tv/supreme-court-sends-back-gun-cases-for-further-review/
The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.
Chief among these cases is Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh, a case brought by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Other cases include challenges to restrictive gun laws in Hawaii, New Jersey and California. In addition, a SAF case called McDougall v. Ventura County, which challenges a closure of gun shops two years ago during the COVID-19 panic, has been vacated by a Ninth Circuit en banc panel and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s New York ruling.
“This is incredibly good news,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
Gottlieb, who also chairs the Citizens Committee, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to remand the McDougall case back for further proceedings consistent with last week’s Bruen ruling sends a strong signal that federal courts can no longer use a made-up “two-step” process to determine Second Amendment cases. As Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion, “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many.”
“Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen,” he noted, “and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.”
“It is also important,” Gottlieb said, “that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.”
Wouldn't it be better for SCOTUS to take at least an assault weapons and high capacity magazines case and rule on it in case the anti-gunners wait until they have a more favorable SCOTUS lineup and pass a law and then send it to SCOTUS and it gets ruled on and we lose the right to possess so-called Assault Weapons and high capacity magazines?
We know from inventories, bills of lading and the like, that this included grenades, bombs, mortars, cannon, warships, and fitments for mounted troops.
These were in common use right up to WWI, and would well be withing Thomas' considered historical era for considering such things.
I think this way, lower courts now have to/must eat their words and change their rulings to say states' past "anti-gunrights" laws were unconstitutional.
And justice Thomas clearly stated in the ruling that "modern" types of firearms such as semi-auto magazine fed pistols/carbines/rifles "in common use" are not dangerous and protected by the 2A just as modern forms of communication "in common use" like email/text are protected by the 1A, not as "second class right".
And if SCOTUS is not happy with lower courts' "new revised" rulings, SCOTUS could still hear the cases and rule on them.
At least that is how this "layperson" sees the action of the SCOTUS today.
GVR order - Type of order issued by the SCOTUS in which the Court grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings ... typically appropriate when there has been a change in legal circumstances subsequent to the lower court or agency's decision, such as a change in the law, a precedential ruling, or a confession of error; the Supreme Court simply sends the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered in light of the new law or the new precedent.
Supreme Court just made an important decision in four critical Second Amendment cases. Also, West Virginia v. EPA Supreme Court decision discussed and what impact it will have on the ATF!
SCOTUS is pretty much putting the lower courts on a warning with 2nd Amendment cases because the moment an Appeals court upholds a magazine or Assault Weapon ban, SCOTUS will take that case and make the ruling nationwide. The Circuit Courts are going to be in a position where to keep a ruling from being appealed up to SCOTUS, they will have to overturn bans themselves and keep that ruling to the states in the Circuit.
The concern I have is once one Circuit upholds a mag or AWB case after one or more overturn them, then it triggers some sort of automatic review by the Supreme Court which if that happens at a time the court looks more like the one when Kennedy was on the bench, the ruling could go the wrong way.
With the court's current makeup, barring any Scalia situations, we should be good for another 10-15 years. I expect Thomas and Alito to retire in 5-10 years
As LL touched on in a following post, not necessarily. Actually, possibly the opposite; A GVR case goes back to lower; they rule appropriately; this strengthens the SCOTUS decision and if the opposing side requests a writ or cert. , denied. Effectively, the SCOTUS does state their position, the previous decision has merit and stands.
In this scenario, the opposing side i.e. state wanting a mag ban would most likely NOT ask for a writ, it could taint any other potential case from going before SCOTUS.
I read this strictly to mean, the previous decision being vacated and therefore RIGHTS ARE RESTORED pending said review? What say brighter minds then mine? Which in itself doesn't mount to much LoL. Effectively for an example that jurisdictions CITIZENS would receive at a minimum , temporary relief of the legal burden i.e. GO BUY MAGS!
I think in light of the Bianchi v. case overturn the court would grant a writ or cert for that with an expected reversal.
All my responses, my lil' pea brain, I've only been to District Court on a group suit once.
That's under the current circumstances. If the Democrats gain the trifecta (House, Senate, and Presidency), they will probably expand the Supreme Court to 15 Justices, or else remove issues of constitutionality from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (creating another Constitutional Court). Those things are well within the scope of congressional power. That's certain to happen if the Court is seen as overtly partisan.
It is not an automatic invalidation of whatever law was at issue. As I posted at TFL: Now, with respect to vacating the appellate court rulings, .... What that means, to use language I've seen in some rulings, is that the appellate court rulings are 'held for naught.' In other words, it's like they never happened. An example not pulled from any of the cases at bar: Let's say a case went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court), and that court struck a law as unconstitutional, and then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's further say that the 9th Circuit reversed, holding it constitutional, and was appealed to SCOTUS. If SCOTS then grants cert, and vacates the judgment of the 9th, then the case goes back to the 9th, but the holding of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA goes back into effect, to include any stays in effect when it went up on appeal the first time.
Now, let's not all jump for joy just yet. There are several possible procedural paths a case could take. Some examples that build on the one in the preceding paragraph: (1) The 9th Circuit could reach the same decision as before (constitutionality), but try to do so in a way that complies with Bruen. (2) The 9th Circuit could decide that it lacked an adequate historical record and send it back for development of the historical record. or (3) The 9th could affirm the holding of the U.S. District Court.
The question then becomes whether we want to win or lose at the 9th. This may seem like a silly question, but consider this: (a) if we win at he 9th, the state could decide not to appeal, and the decision is only binding in the 9th Circuit, but possibly persuasive in other circuits; (b) if we lose at the 9th, our side gets the option of appeal and if we then go on to win at SCOTUS, we get a decision that is binding law on all of the circuits.
Let me also add that we may be in for what I think of as the "fermentation period," like we had after Heller and MacDonald. It is entirely possible that SCOTUS will let cases "ferment" in the circuits, watching to see what they come up with and waiting until we've got enough conflict between appellate court decisions to require a SCOTUS ruling to harmonize them.
Very good point.
Now the district courts can decide whether to overturn the states' bans on semi-auto magazine fed handguns/carbines/rifles and other arms like magazines along with carry issue and rule them unconstitutional for states in their respective districts or allow the SCOTUS to rule for the entire country.
An important update for Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon case) affecting Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon).
A motion has been filed to lift the 9th Circuit stay on the purchase and possession of banned "featured" rifles. This is in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen which removed the two step approach and if stay is lifted, will allow CA gun owners to buy/possess "normal" semi-auto magazine fed rifles with currently banned features (Pistol grip, extendable stock, flash hider, forward vertical grip, etc.).
Update to Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban case) and where it goes from here now that the Supreme Court has ruled in NYSRPA v Bruen and remanded Duncan back to the 9th Circuit.
After judge Benitez ruled CA magazine ban unconstitutional since magazines are "arms" protected by the 2A, CA appealed and en banc panel disagreed with the ruling using the two step process and judge Benitez issued a stay. Since SCOTUS ruling on Bruen eliminated the two step process, now judge Benitez may likely will remove the stay.
If stay is removed, this CA case will set precedent for other 9th Circuit states that may be pursuing similar cases as Duncan like WA's magazine ban:
Northern Mariana Islands
Sure exciting times as many 2A cases are likely to be ruled in favor of gun owners and stays lifted.
Renna v Bonta deals with CA Handgun Roster and since 9th Circuit ruled using the two step approach, any challenge would reverse the ruling post Supreme Court Bruen ruling.
Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) and affecting Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon) was stayed at the 9th Circuit but a motion was filed to lift the stay due to Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-6#post-12343098
If/once stay is lifted, then CA assault weapons ban would effectively end (No more featureless rifles, no more registered "Assault Weapons") as judge Benitez ruling in Miller was quite clear that modern rifles in common use that use magazines are protected by the 2A. With Bruen ruling eliminating the two step approach, I believe stay being lifted is likely - https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515
Duncan v Bonta was reviewed by the Supreme Court and put on hold pending Bruen but was remanded back to 9th Circuit after the ruling. Judge Benitez was also quite clear in Duncan ruling and confirmed Caetano v Mass ruling that magazines are "arms" protected by 2A and normal capacity magazines could be cruicial to gun owners defend themselves without the "lethal pause" 10 round magazines may cause under gunfighting situations.
Like Duncan, ANJRPC v Grewal, (NJ magazine ban case) and Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon case) were also reviewed by the Supreme Court and put on hold pending Bruen ruling but remanded back down to their respective Circuits along with Young v Hawaii (HI open carry case)
Lifting the ban on California's so-called 'Assault Weapons' ban I can agree with, but I don't think California's Assault Weapon registration law will be struck down. The Supreme Court did not strike down gun registration schemes in Heller, McDonald, or NYSRPA v. Bruen. Since gun registration per se does not deprive you of your Second Amendment rights, then as long as California allows you own an assault weapon, but requires you to register it, I doubt that the law will be struck down.
Many states still have handgun registration laws on the books, including my Michigan, and AFAIK those gun registration laws are not being challenged under Bruen's History and Tradition test, again because no Second Amendment right is being denied. There may be other rights, such as the Fourth Amendment, that might be violated by gun registration, but that was no argued.
CA residents can request to have qualifying "registered assault weapons" cancelled from registration.
From CA DOJ Attorney General's FAQ page - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs
If the characteristics that make my firearm a category 3 assault weapon are removed, can I cancel the registration? Can I sell it as regular (non-assault weapon) firearm?
Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as a category 3 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled ... To cancel an assault weapon registration, contact DOJ at (916) 227-2153. Once the registration has been canceled, the firearm can be sold or transferred like any other firearm (non-assault weapon).
And here are qualifying categories of "assault weapon":
What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
Category One: Firearms specified on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (a),(b), and (c).)
Category Two: Firearms specified on the AK and AR-15 series weapons, pdf. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (e) and (f).)
Category Three: Firearms defined as assault weapons based on specific generic characteristics, often called “SB 23 assault weapons.” (Pen. Code, § 30515.)
But if stay granted for Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban) is lifted which also would affect Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon), some/all of these qualifying firearms would be legal to own without registration.
Time will tell what will happen.
Efforts by the state of California to have the Miller v. Bonta California assault weapon ban case remanded back to Judge Benitez and forcing the restart of the case!
Update in the Miller v. Bonta California "Assault Weapon" ban case and the current battle to lift the stay on Judge Benitez's ruling!
Separate names with a comma.