Supreme Court ruled Bruen methodology (Text/history/tradition - burden shifting to states) as law of the land, how will this apply to future 2A cases?

[LiveLife]

Sotomayor is more blunt:

Today, the Court applies its decision in ... Bruen ... for the first time. Although I continue to believe that Bruen was wrongly decided, I join the Court’s opinion applying that precedent to uphold 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).

In the end, dissenting opinions or disagreements do not count nor set precedents.

It's the majority court opinion that matters and sets precedents.

And while minority justices did a lot of hand waving in their disagreements and dissent opinions, IN THE END, they CONCEDED and ADMITTED in Bruen/Rahimi that Bruen methodology is the new test for Second Amendment cases and passed the Rahimi test to stand as "binding law" of the land.

So "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the states/government is now "binding law" and two-step interest balancing (Greater good of society/community over individual rights like for mass shooting argument) is out.

And thus the Supreme Court ruled once again like they did for First Amendment cases and other amendment cases, individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights, this time for Second Amendment, that individual's right to self-defense is constitutional against mass shooting arguments.

This is why I believe Supreme Court will rule in favor of "modern" types of arms and accessories in coming terms to expand Second Amendment protection, just like First Amendment protection expanding to "modern" forms of communition. Because the Second Amendment is not a "second class" right.

 

[Basura Blanca]

In the end, dissenting opinions or disagreements do not count nor set precedents.

It's the majority court opinion that matters and sets precedents.

No argument.
But remember, the stuff I quoted is from the majority opinion.

 

[LiveLife]

Sotomayor is more blunt:

Today, the Court applies its decision in ... Bruen ... for the first time. Although I continue to believe that Bruen was wrongly decided, I join the Court’s opinion applying that precedent to uphold 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).

But remember, the stuff I quoted is from the majority opinion.

Did you mean "concurring" opinion (Page 23 of pdf) as justice Roberts gave the Court's opinion (Page 5 of pdf) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.​

​

... SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring"​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Range v Garland (Permanent disarming of non-violent felon).

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss update to Range case:

• Range was denied Second Amendment RKBA due to concealing some of income to obtain food stamp for family 26 years ago
• District court and three judge panel of 3rd Circuit ruled against Range
• En banc panel of 3rd Circuit ruled in favor of Range but US government appealed to the Supreme Court
• Range case was put on hold pending Rahimi ruling and after Supreme Court ruled in Rahimi, Range case was GVR'd (Granted, Vacated and Remanded) back down to the 3rd Circuit for reconsideration
• In U.S. v Rahimi (Temporary disarming of violent felon), Supreme Court ruled even violent felons are part of "We the People" and could not be permanently disarmed ("We the People" could only be temporarily be disarmed after court order under immediate danger to others and 2A RKBA must be restored when not immediate danger to others)
• [Rahimi reaffirmed Bruen methodology and shifted burden of historical tradition evidence to the government and same should happen for GVR'd Range case]
• First brief filed post Supreme Court GVR back down to 3rd Circuit argues Rahimi decision should not change 3rd Circuit En Banc ruling as Rahimi dealt with temporary disarming of violent felon and Range case is about permanent disarming of non-violent felon. In Rahimi, Supreme Court rejected responsible person analysis and ruled even violent felons are part of "We the People"; so for Range case, non-violent felon is also part of "We the People" and government cannot permanently disarm
• Oral arguments are scheduled for October 9th, 2024
• BTW, attorneys for Range are also representing VanDerStok v Garland with arguments scheduled for October 8th, 2024 and requested rescheduling of Range argument date but the 3rd Circuit denied that request

BREAKING!!! Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!

In this video I break down how the recent Supreme Court possession decision and GVR is impacting Second Amendment cases!Kershaw: Use code Armed40 for 40% off...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #127 regarding May v. Bonta (CA sensitive area carry ban) which was decided together with Wolford v Lopez (CA sensitive area carry ban) and Carralero v. Bonta (CA sensitive area carry ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12974769

9th Circuit Partly Upholds Injunctions Against Location-Specific Gun Bans in California and Hawaii - https://reason.com/2024/09/09/9th-c...n-specific-gun-bans-in-california-and-hawaii/

• After Bruen ruling, several states responded by making concealed-carry permits easier to obtain but much harder to use, banning guns from long lists of "sensitive places."
• California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the politicians who embraced that strategy, portrayed it as justified resistance to a "very bad ruling."
• 9th Circuit, which is not known for its friendliness to Second Amendment rights, dealt a blow to that end run by partly upholding two preliminary injunctions against location-specific gun bans in California and Hawaii, including prohibitions on guns in places of worship, banks, public transit, medical facilities, and certain parking lots.
• At the same time, 9th Circuit upheld several broad provisions that make it a crime to carry guns in parks, playgrounds, "places of amusement," and bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, along with Hawaii's default rule against guns in businesses open to the public.
• Under Bruen ruling, gun laws that restrict conduct covered by the "plain text" of the Second Amendment pass muster only if the government shows they are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." In Wolford v. Lopez, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Hawaii and California had failed to meet that burden in defending several gun-free zones.
• Although the Supreme Court has recognized a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in certain locations, it has been hazy on exactly which locations qualify as "sensitive places."
• District of Columbia v. Heller stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The Court was not much more specific in Bruen: "Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century 'sensitive places' where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions."
• Applying the Bruen test, the 9th Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs who challenged California's law are likely to succeed in their argument that the state's ban on guns in places of worship is unconstitutional. "From the colonial times through the ratification of the Second Amendment and continuing through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendant has not pointed to a single regulation banning firearms at places of worship or at any analogous place," Judge Susan Graber writes in the panel's opinion. "The lack of any regulation is especially probative given the prevalence of places of worship during that period."
• The 9th Circuit saw a similar problem with California's defense of its ban on guns at public gatherings that require a permit. The state "argues that there is a national tradition of banning firearms at public gatherings in general and, because permitted gatherings are a subset of all public gatherings, the challenged provision falls within the tradition," Graber notes. Because "public gatherings have existed since before the Founding," she says, the state "must show an enduring national tradition with respect to public gatherings." Yet "as with places of worship," California "cannot point to a single regulation of public gatherings until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment."
• California and Hawaii also prohibited guns in banks and other financial institutions. "Modern banks are roughly the same as banks in 1791," Graber notes. "Defendants have not pointed to any evidence of a historical regulation—or even a more modern regulation—prohibiting the carry of firearms in banks. And Defendants have not pointed to a historical regulation prohibiting carry in another type of place analogous to a bank or financial institution."
• What about California's ban on guns in hospitals and other medical facilities? "Medical facilities of some sort have existed since colonial times," Graber writes. "As the district court here concluded, Defendant has not introduced any evidence of a historical ban on firearms in medical facilities of any type."
• A federal judge in Illinois recently rejected the state's argument that public transit qualifies as a "sensitive place." The 9th Circuit was similarly skeptical of California's ban on guns in public transportation vehicles and facilities. Since "public transit did not exist in modern form until the 20th century," Graber says, the state "has to point only to a relevantly similar historical regulation, not a dead ringer." Like Illinois, California cited 19th century restrictions on guns imposed by private railroads.
• "Our examination of the relevant regulations suggests that California's law is too broad," Graber writes. "The historical regulations are insufficiently analogous. In particular, most of the companies appeared to prohibit only carriage without pre-boarding inspection, carriage in the passenger cars (the firearms had to be checked as luggage), carriage of loaded firearms, or carriage of 'dangerous' weapons, such as rifles with bayonets attached. Moreover, several States enacted a 'traveler's exception,' whereby persons traveling longer distances could carry their firearms on board."
• The 9th Circuit also upheld the part of a preliminary injunction that barred Hawaii from enforcing a ban on guns in parking areas shared by government buildings and private businesses. Hawaii's law applies to "any building or office owned, leased, or used by the State or a county, and adjacent grounds and parking areas." The state claimed that provision, contrary to its apparent meaning, covers only parking areas used exclusively by government buildings. But the 9th Circuit thought it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to worry that they would be prosecuted for violating the law if they carried their handguns in shared parking areas.
• "On appeal, Defendant has not challenged meaningfully the Second Amendment analysis as to shared parking lots," Graber writes. "We hold that, at least for the purpose of the preliminary injunction, Defendant has forfeited any argument as to the merits."
• It was not all good news for permit holders who want to carry guns in public for self-defense. Hawaii and California both established default rules that barred guns from private businesses without the owner's consent. As a general matter, the 9th Circuit deemed such rules consistent with historical tradition. Graber cites two sets of precedents: anti-poaching laws that "prohibited the carry of firearms onto subsets of private land, such as plantations or enclosed lands," and broader laws that banned "the carrying of firearms onto any private property without the owner's consent."
• The record "contains no evidence whatsoever that these laws were viewed as controversial or constitutionally questionable," Graber writes. "Instead, they were viewed as falling well within the colony's or the State's ordinary police power to regulate the default rules concerning private property."
• Graber nevertheless sees an important distinction between Hawaii's law and California's. Hawaii prohibits guns "unless the owner has posted signs, otherwise has given written consent, or has given oral consent," she notes. California, by contrast, allows "the carry of firearms on private property only if the owner has consented in one specific way: posting signs of a particular size." The latter law "falls outside the historical tradition," Graber says. "We find no historical support for that stringent limitation."
• The 9th Circuit saw no constitutional problem with several other broad restrictions, including bans on guns in "parks and similar places." Based on the current record, the plaintiffs "are unlikely to succeed in their assertion that the public green spaces that existed in 1791 [where guns were allowed] were akin to a modern park," Graber writes. "As soon as green spaces began to take the shape of a modern park, in the middle of the 19th century, municipalities and other governments imposed bans on carrying firearms into the parks." She offers a long list of 19th century examples, including parks in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Trenton, Spokane, Indianapolis, and Kansas City.
• "Because many laws prohibited carrying firearms in parks, and the constitutionality of those laws was not in dispute, we agree with the Second Circuit and several district courts that the Nation's historical tradition includes regulating firearms in parks," Graber says. She rejects the plaintiffs' argument that a historical tradition requires state laws or restrictions that applied to a large share of the national population. She notes that "the Supreme Court designated schools as sensitive places, even though less historical support justified that designation."
• The plaintiffs also argued that prohibiting guns in municipal parks is a far cry from banning them in "large, rural, and sparsely visited parks." But since the plaintiffs mounted a facial challenge to the park bans, Graber says, they have to show those provisions are unconstitutional in every conceivable application.
• The 9th Circuit extended its approval of gun bans in parks to "other, related places," such as beaches and athletic facilities. It also concluded that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in their challenges to bans on guns in playgrounds and youth centers. "Playgrounds are found primarily at schools and parks," Graber writes. "Both categories of places qualify as 'sensitive places' that have a historical tradition of firearm bans; by extension, there is a historical tradition of banning firearms at playgrounds. Plaintiffs do not present any separate argument concerning youth centers, which are akin to schools."
• The 9th Circuit also rejected the part of a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Hawaii's ban on guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. "In a long line of regulations dating back to the colonial era, colonies, states, and cities have regulated in ways reflecting their understanding that firearms and intoxication are a dangerous mix," Graber says. Those regulations included laws that "prohibited retailers of liquor from keeping gunpowder," banned people from carrying guns while intoxicated, and tried to prevent drunkenness among militia members. Subsequent laws, enacted in the 19th century, "broadly prohibited the carry of firearms at ballrooms and at social gatherings." A few local and state laws specifically prohibited guns in bars and other locations where alcohol was served, Graber says, and "no evidence in the record suggests that anyone disputed the constitutionality of those laws."
• The 9th Circuit goes further, blessing state bans on guns in "places of amusement" such as casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums, and libraries. "Both before and shortly following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, cities, states, and territories prohibited firearms at a wide range of places for social gathering and amusement," Graber says, including ballrooms, public parties, fairs, race courses, circuses, exhibitions, and "place where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes." She notes that "state court decisions at the time rejected arguments that the provisions conflicted with the Second Amendment."
• The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a plaintiff in the California case, welcomed the parts of the 9th Circuit's ruling that rejected the state's defense of certain location-specific gun restrictions. "This partially favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit shows how far we've come over the past decade," said FPC President Brandon Combs. "But this case, and our work to restore the right to bear arms, is far from over. FPC will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to carry in California and throughout the United States."

9th Circuit Panel Hands Partial Win to SAF, Allies In "Sensitive Areas" Lawsuit - https://saf.org/9th-circuit-panel-hands-partial-win-to-saf-allies-in-sensitive-areas-lawsuit/

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has handed a partial victory to the Second Amendment Foundation and it allies in a challenge of state laws prohibiting licensed concealed carry in so-called “sensitive places.”​

​

The SAF case, known as May v. Bonta, was decided along with two other cases—one from California and the other from Hawaii—Friday. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote the 71-page opinion for the court, which affirmed an injunction against California’s restrictions “with respect to hospitals and similar medical facilities, public transit, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places, and the new default rule as to private property.”​

​

The ruling reverses a preliminary injunction as it applied to “bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, playgrounds, youth centers, parks, athletic areas, athletic facilities, most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, casinos and similar gambling establishments, stadiums, arenas, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos, and museums; parking areas and similar areas connected to those places; and all parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.”​

​

“We are pleased that the 9th Circuit has affirmed part of the lower court’s injunction,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “However, we maintain that the areas as to which the Court reversed the injunction, and reinstated the carry ban, violate the Second Amendment. The State’s expansion of so called ‘sensitive places’ goes beyond what the Supreme Court contemplated when it mentioned them in Bruen and are designed to discourage individuals from bearing arms in public. SAF and its partners will continue to aggressively litigate this case to ensure Californians may exercise their Second Amendment rights in full.”​

​

“We’re delighted the appeals court panel upheld the district court’s judgment that we are likely to succeed in our challenge of the prohibition on public transportation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time is an ongoing process, and each step takes us closer to victory.”​

Some Wins, Some Losses In May v Bonta Ruling - https://crpa.org/news/blogs/some-wins-some-losses-in-may-v-bonta-ruling/

The latest ruling in May v. Bonta is something of a split decision, with some key victories achieved and some work left to do. This fight is most definitely not over, and we need your urgent support to keep pushing forward!!​

​

Here’s where we won back your right to carry:​

Hospitals​

Churches​

Medical facilities​

Public transit​

Gatherings that require a permit​

Parking areas attached to these places​

The “Vampire Rule”​

​

Here’s where we came up short on today’s ruling (and what we’ll keep pushing on!):​

Bars and restaurants serving alcohol​

Playgrounds​

Parks, State Parks​

Casinos​

Stadiums and Arenas​

Libraries​

Zoos​

Museums​

Parking areas​

​

The result was better than expected given the tough three judge panel we faced, so while we’re disappointed by these losses, we must keep fighting!!​

​

CRPA will act quickly to determine our next steps—whether it’s petitioning for en banc review, pushing for Supreme Court action, or pursuing a final judgment in the trial court and another appeal.​

​

President of CRPA Chuck Michel discuss 9th Circuit ruling

9th Circuit Finally drops an opinion on Sensitive Places in Hawaii and California: what does it mean

9th Circuit Finally drops an opinion on Sensitive Places in Hawaii and California - Here is what you need to know!2024-09-06-Opinion.pdf (michellawyers.com)J...

www.youtube.com

 

[armoredman]

Hmm, I wonder if local hospitals in Arizona know about this, considering we are under the 9th...

 

[LiveLife]

I wonder if local hospitals in Arizona know about this, considering we are under the 9th...

While 9th Circuit includes Arizona, these three cases are based out of CA and won't affect AZ yet.

If there is a legal challenge filed for AZ or any other 9th Circuit state, this ruling will have "precedent" for those cases.

AMAZING THING is the usual anti-2A 9th Circuit ACTUALLY FOLLOWED Bruen methodology of "Text, history, tradition" and BURDENED CA to come up with historical tradition evidence (Which they could not and hence the partial pro-2A ruling).

This is great for us and for other district/circuit courts to follow as to how to "properly" approach 2A cases in compliance to Bruen methodology.

I am sure the ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court to clarify meaning of "sensitive places" but this is a great progression and application of Bruen ruling which is now "binding law" of the land.

 

[LiveLife]

Bruen ruling of "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the states/government is a gift that keeps on giving.

At 7:16 minute of video, topic of "modern" arms technology of suppressors protecting hearing of shooters and those around the shooters, especially indoors is discussed. Significance from the ruling is judge McGlynn considering suppressors as "arms". And are suppressors "in common use"? Yes they are. Therefore we can connect the dots and argue for suppressors as safety device/gun accessory (Refer to Supreme Court's Cargill bump stock ruling and Heller/Caetano "modern" arms rulings) as arms "in common use"; therefore, not "Dangerous and unusual" and protected by the Second Amendment.

At 14:30 minute of video, Mark discuss that Congress in NFA treats silencers/suppressors as "firearms". And if firearm/arm is not "Dangerous and unusual", then suppressors should be arms protected by the Second Amendment.

US District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn expressed interest in several important topics associated with a pending suppressor ban lawsuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner connects and dots and gives a shout out to the courthouse reporting of ‪@BishopOnAir‬ on X.

0:00 Major 2A Case News!​

1:58 Case Background & Details​

3:40 Looking at a Separate Case​

5:50 How These Two Cases Relate...​

10:10 Burden Shifts To Gov't & "Dangerous & Unusual"​

14:01 "Arms" Are Not Just Guns!​

16:55 Thank You!​

BREAKING: GREAT 2A NEWS FOR SUPPRESSOR BAN CASE...

US District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn expressed interest in several important topics associated with a pending suppressor ban lawsuit. Mark Smith Four Boxe...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, already discussed the significance of Rahimi ruling in his law review article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy why Rahimi ruling was a win for RKBA - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12949242

The Federalist Society presents 2024 Annual Supreme Court Round Up featuring Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC, discussing the 2023-2024 term. < It's bedtime for me and will do a bulleted transcript later ... maybe ... It's almost hour and 20 minutes >

2024 Annual Supreme Court Round Up

On Thursday, July 25, the Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter hosted the annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the 2023-2024 term. Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Cle...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Heller, Bruen and Rahimi methodology examined in argument at the 5th Circuit regarding 18-20 year old carry case.

• (7:41 minute) - Plaintiff attorney: "Rahimi ... was really just a routine application of the text and history standard articulated in Bruen which Rahimi reaffirms. Rahimi ... clarifies that those founding era laws are appropriate analogues ... the government has not identified any laws. It has no, it has zero, age-based firearm restrictions at the founding.
• (8:34 minute) - Mark Smith: "Let's talk about the Militia Act ... Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 and ... Militia Act of 1792 was enacted by Congress as a national standard for age of militia members in 18, 19 and 20 old fell within that because the age of people in the militia were free men 18 to 45 years of age ... This is particularly important because under the federal law, a National Standard not a state standard ... they had an obligation to bring their own firearms with them to militia muster (Process of accounting for members). So how on Earth could 18, 19, 20 year olds be even possibly able to comply with that requirement if they weren't able to acquire guns privately in the first place and then in turn bring them to militia musters and the court discusses that right here
• (9:34 minute) Judge Edith Jones: "At the founding they required 18 year olds to show up for militia duty with their own gun ... militia laws ...
  they are very relevant in this. I mean, I don't think you can honestly discard them ... 1791 or to Militia Act ... importance of age qualifications and 18 year olds had to produce their own weapons for the militia

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held oral argument about whether the federal government can restrict gun possession among 18-20 year old Americans. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses the audio of the argument.

Audio here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgR...​

​

0:00 Oral Argument Audio Revealed!​

1:45 Big Argument on 18-20 Handgun Law​

2:40 Pro-2A Opening Argument​

3:50 Presumption of Freedom​

7:30 How Rahimi Affects This Case​

11:30 Post-Ratification Historical Relevance​

17:50 Thank You!​

INSIDE LOOK: Massive Oral Argument in 18-20 Year Old Carry Case...

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held oral argument about whether the federal government can restrict gun possession among 18-20 year old Americ...

www.youtube.com

 

[armoredman]

Very cool, thank you again for posting this!

 

[LiveLife]

Enemy of my enemy is my friend?

After ACLU represented NRA in their First Amendment case, ACLU now files amicus brief defending 2A in US v Duarte (Non-violent felon RKBA)?

SAF lauds ACLU's Amicus to 9th Circuit in 2nd Amendment case - https://saf.org/saf-lauds-aclus-amicus-to-9th-circuit-in-2nd-amendment-case/

The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding an amicus brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union in a Second Amendment case which contends a man named Steven Duarte “did not forfeit his Second Amendment rights because of a past, nonviolent felony conviction.” The case is known as U.S. v. Duarte.​

​

Following in the footsteps of U.S. v Rahimi (Temporary disarming of violent felon) ruled by the Supreme Court and similar to Range v Garland (Non-violent felon RKBA) which is at the 3rd Circuit, U.S. v. Duarte (Non-violent felon RKBA) is at the 9th Circuit.`

ACLU's amicus brief base heavily into Bruen methodology.

“This is a remarkable and refreshing approach by the ACLU,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The organization has produced a stunningly detailed amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. While acknowledging its history of concerns regarding gun-related violent crime, in this case the ACLU properly criticizes federal law for permanently disarming people previously convicted of nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors where a state legislature has imposed a sufficiently long possible prison sentence to result in a lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights. Thus, as the ACLU sagely observes, someone could be put in prison for ‘the most fleeting, innocuous, or merely constructive ‘possession’ of a firearm’.”​

​

The ACLU’s 40-page brief, Gottlieb noted, is very critical about how the law has been used to punish people who had been previously convicted for the most innocuous offenses. The brief notes, for example, “The government cannot show that applying such sweeping criminal liability to people like Mr. Duarte is consistent with the principles underpinning our tradition of regulating firearms.”​

​

BTW, 9th Circuit 3 judge panel ruling from May of 2024 "correctly applying" Bruen methodology and shifting burden to the state/government and included non-violent felons (Like violent felons in Rahimi) as part of "We the People" - https://www.fd.org/news/ninth-circu...stitutional-non-violent-offenders-after-bruen

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Steven Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions—all punishable for more than a year— was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree ...​

​

At step one of Bruen, we easily conclude that Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text and that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for selfdefense”— falls within the Second Amendment’s plain language, two points the Government never disputes. The Government argues only that “the people” in the Second Amendment excludes felons like Duarte because they are not members of the “virtuous” citizenry. We do not share that view. Bruen and Heller foreclose that argument because both recognized the “strong presumption” that the text of the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms that belongs to “all Americans,” not an “unspecified subset.” Our own analysis of the Second Amendment’s publicly understood meaning also confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was every citizen’s fundamental right. Because Duarte is an American citizen, he is “part of ‘the people’ whom the Second Amendment protects.”​

​

At Bruen’s second step, we conclude that the Government has failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right. The Government put forward no “well-established and representative historical analogue” that “impose[d] a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense” that was “comparably justified” as compared to § 922(g)(1)’s sweeping, no-exception, lifelong ban. We therefore vacate Duarte’s conviction and reverse the district court’s judgment entering the same.​

 

[LiveLife]

Is NRA finally getting the "Membership's intent for NRA to be a true pro-2A organization" memo?

And FPC is openly supporting NRA-ILA ... This could represent/indicate something good for our 2A fight against the war with the antis.


Adding to US v Duarte (Non-violent felon RKBA) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12988679

​

FPC, NRA Team Up on Second Amendment Brief in 9th Circuit Appeal Challenging Federal Gun Ban - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...th-circuit-appeal-challenging-federal-gun-ban

​

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a joint brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Duarte. In Duarte, the defendant was charged with violating a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by people convicted of crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, regardless of the nature of that crime. The brief, authored by Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.​

​

“America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence,” argues the brief. “But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather, peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons and other unvirtuous persons—were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear arms.”​

​

“It is unconstitutional and immoral for the government to forever disarm people like Mr. Duarte, who committed a non-violent crime, served his time, and successfully reentered society. We will continue to fight to eliminate gun control laws like the one at issue in this case and restore the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable people,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We thank our friends at the NRA and its counsel for their hard work and partnership on this important brief.”​

​

As the NRA explains here, “The amicus brief provides an extensive historical analysis of firearm prohibitions from colonial America through the nineteenth century. It emphasizes that America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather, historically, peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons—were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear arms.”​

​

Please visit nraila.org for updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend constitutional rights.​

​

NRA Files Amicus Brief Arguing that Firearm Prohibitions for Nonviolent Felons Violate the Second Amendment - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...onviolent-felons-violate-the-second-amendment

NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief in United States v. Duarte, a challenge to the federal lifetime prohibition on firearms possession by nonviolent felons.​

​

The Supreme Court’s text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges provides that a firearm regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.​

​

The amicus brief provides an extensive historical analysis of firearm prohibitions from colonial America through the nineteenth century. It emphasizes that America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons—disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather, historically, peaceable citizens—including nonviolent felons—were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear arms.​

​

The case is currently before the en banc Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the court vacated a prior decision by a 3-judge panel holding the ban unconstitutional as applied to Duarte.​

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #162 regarding U.S. v. Duarte (Non-violent felon RKBA) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12988679

Mark Smith, constitutional attorney discuss surprising left leaning ACLU filing amicus brief in support of Second Amendment.

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment in a case before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.

0:00 Surprising 2A News!​

1:25 Case Background & Details​

3:05 When People Can Be Disarmed According to SCOTUS​

4:25 Why The ACLU is Supporting 2A Here...​

7:13 The ACLU is Totally Right Here!​

9:10 Garland's Argument Here is Horrible​

11:10 ACLU on Historical Precedent & Test Cases​

15:10 Thank You!​

SURPRISING 2A ALLY: LEFTIST ACLU FILES BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 2A...

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment in a case before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes D...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR

This is my take on the significance of Bruen ruling in terms of historic SHIFT in how the Supreme Court will address future 2A cases after receiving final merits decisions from lower courts.

Prior to Bruen, interest balancing "greater good of society/community over individual right" was considered for 2A cases.

Bruen changed that and did a historic SHIFT refocus on individual rights protected under the Second Amendment factoring previous Heller/Caetano rulings to expand 2A protection to include "modern" arms and accessories (As ruled in Cargill bump stock case).

So now "Text, history and tradition" must be used for Bruen test with burden shifting to the state/government. Notice, consideration for interest balancing "greater good of society/community over individual right" WENT OUT THE WINDOW.

Bruen methodology was reaffirmed in Rahimi as chief justice Roberts explained - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/post-12928828

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.”​

​

"Government must show that the restriction 'is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation' ... Government ... bears the burden to 'justify its regulation'"​

​

In Bruen, we directed courts to examine our “historical tradition of firearm regulation” to help delineate the contours of the right. We explained that if a challenged regulation fits within that tradition, it is lawful under the Second Amendment. We also clarified that when the Government regulates arms-bearing conduct, as when the Government regulates other constitutional rights, it bears the burden to “justify its regulation.”​

But since Bruen ruling, some lower courts CONTINUED to use interest balancing "greater good of society/community over individual right" argument, which BTW was tossed out by Bruen, in support of mass shooting based consideration for ruling against "modern" arms and accessories ruled in Heller/Caetano/Cargill.

And when historical analogue to ban "modern" arms and accessories could not be found, some lower courts expanded regulation examples of Bowie knives. And when that argument didn't work, started using "military use/military grade" argument to ban "modern" arms and accessories because such increased "lethality" over non-military arms. In 3rd Circuit ruling for Gray v Jennings, court made the argument that "military grade" .223/5.56 AR15 must be banned because higher 3000 fps muzzle velocity was double that of 1600 fps 9mm pistol (Wow, when 9mm Major is around 1400-1450 fps ... Where did they get that ammunition?) and increased "lethality". Well, does that mean bolt action rifles must also be banned if they produce greater than 3000 fps muzzle velocity? And BTW, 9mm pistol is also used for "military use/military grade" so it must be banned as well?

In response to non-compliance by lower courts, chief justice Roberts stated,

... 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.​

As increasing number of lower court rulings pointed out, while mass shootings are tragic, Bruen methodology focuses on individual right to use arms, including "modern" arms and accessories for lawful purposes, including self-defense. And if state/government cannot produce historic tradition evidence of analogous ban, then "modern" arms and accessories cannot be banned, no matter how much hand waving is done for interest balancing "greater good of society/community" as Bruen ruling separated that from Bruen methodology.

Even the 9th Circuit recently ruled applying Bruen methodology - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12988679

At Bruen’s second step, we conclude that the Government has failed to prove ... categorical prohibition ... “is part of the historical tradition" ... The Government put forward no “well-established and representative historical analogue”​

IMO, I believe that is what the Supreme Court will clarify and reaffirm in future 2A cases.

 

[armoredman]

If enough of these lower courts get spanked with the Bruen paddle, MAYBE we can see more of these cases come around, but the 7th needs a MAJOR whoopin'!

 

[LiveLife]

If enough of these lower courts get spanked with the Bruen paddle, MAYBE we can see more of these cases come around, but the 7th needs a MAJOR whoopin'!

I think Supreme Court ruling based on "Review of nation's historic tradition evidence" of modern arms and accessories to include AW/magazine ban is "Enjoined in its entirety" should be sufficient.

 

[Basura Blanca]

But since Bruen ruling, some lower courts CONTINUED to use interest balancing "greater good of society/community over individual right" argument, which BTW was tossed out by Bruen, in support of mass shooting based consideration for ruling against "modern" arms and accessories ruled in Heller/Caetano/Cargill.

And when historical analogue to ban "modern" arms and accessories could not be found, some lower courts expanded regulation examples of Bowie knives. And when that argument didn't work...

But it did work. The bowie knife analogue was accepted in part, in New Jersey, Cheeseman.

 

[LiveLife]

But it did work. The bowie knife analogue was accepted in part, in New Jersey, Cheeseman.

Only at the District Court level and already appealed to the 3rd Circuit - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-first-in-new-jersey-assault-weapon-ban-appeal

By the time that case makes through 3rd Circuit and likely appealed to the Supreme Court, we may already have decision on other AW/magazine ban cases.

 

[Basura Blanca]

"likely appealed to the Supreme Court"
But that doesn't change the fact that the argument took root and was accepted as a historically valid example of regulating LCMs. If and until it's erased in a higher appeal, it's still a thing. It was accepted by the court and entered into the record by the judge. It worked.

 

[irishlad]

"likely appealed to the Supreme Court"
But that doesn't change the fact that the argument took root and was accepted as a historically valid example of regulating LCMs. If and until it's erased in a higher appeal, it's still a thing. It was accepted by the court and entered into the record by the judge. It worked.

You might want to start your own thread instead of arguing with LiveLife’s every post. It’s getting old. Gonna use the ignore option.

 

[LiveLife]

arguing with LiveLife’s every post

 

[Mk-211]

You might want to start your own thread instead of arguing with LiveLife’s every post. It’s getting old. Gonna use the ignore option.

It's a discussion board, nothing wrong with other opinions. What may look like arguing, is another side of the discussion.

When going up against the anti's, knowing what they'll throw at you, is always good to know.

It's when the discussion turns to name calling, rants, foul language. You know that that person has no argument.

 

[LiveLife]

When going up against the anti's, knowing what they'll throw at you, is always good to know.

I spent 26 years working for CA state government in several different agencies and was often surrounded by anti-gun crowd. I worked various positions as rank-and-file, supervisor, manager and director.

I DID NOT hide my support for gun rights and my hobby/passion of shooting USPSA matches and often engaged the anti-gun crowds with the virtues of gun ownership.

Since I lived in cities with gang related home invasion robberies and crimes, question that usually worked to convert anti-gun to pro-gun was what they would do if gang bangers are kicking their door in because they got the wrong house to demand drug money and 911/police response would not be immediate. After silent pondering, most end up admitting firearm would be the obvious and likely the only choice in such situation for self-defense.

And during 26 years, I have taken hundreds of coworkers/neighbors and their family/friends to the range and taught them to shoot with many becoming CCW permit holders. Yes, even in CA, they issue CCW permits.

 

[irishlad]

It's a discussion board, nothing wrong with other opinions. What may look like arguing, is another side of the discussion.

When going up against the anti's, knowing what they'll throw at you, is always good to know.

It's when the discussion turns to name calling, rants, foul language. You know that that person has no argument.

Easy solution for me, I just put him on ignore