MA Gun Grab 2024: Senate bill S.2572

[pastera]

SCOTUS will either find some excuse to not hear the AWB cases and if pushed will most likely rule in favor of AWBs as a "state's rights" issue and we will be screwed forever.

Realistically the only path to a loss is if they deny cert.
If granted cert it would take one of Gorsuch, Kavanagh or Barrett to foundationally change in order to flip the court.

But denying cert is a very real possibility since it it technically still an interlocutory appeal.
In theory it has already been granted cert with a GVR and the 4th is playing games so they might take it up just to issue a very clear smack down to the rebellious lower courts.

My guess is 70-80% for granting cert.

 

[71montess]

Realistically the only path to a loss is if they deny cert.
If granted cert it would take one of Gorsuch, Kavanagh or Barrett to foundationally change in order to flip the court.

But denying cert is a very real possibility since it it technically still an interlocutory appeal.
In theory it has already been granted cert with a GVR and the 4th is playing games so they might take it up just to issue a very clear smack down to the rebellious lower courts.

My guess is 70-80% for granting cert.

 

[Joeldiaz]

My guess is 70-80% for granting cert.

That is a very huge percentage, especially considering this is an interlocutory appeal like you said. SCOTUS hates interlocutory appeals with a passion, and although the 4th Circuit is indeed playing games, SCOTUS like to play the long game more often than not. I predict it’s more like a 30-40% chance of them granting it.

 

[Nightshift]

That is a very huge percentage, especially considering this is an interlocutory appeal like you said. SCOTUS hates interlocutory appeals with a passion, and although the 4th Circuit is indeed playing games, SCOTUS like to play the long game more often than not. I predict it’s more like a 30-40% chance of them granting it.

 

[pastera]

That is a very huge percentage, especially considering this is an interlocutory appeal like you said. SCOTUS hates interlocutory appeals with a passion, and although the 4th Circuit is indeed playing games, SCOTUS like to play the long game more often than not. I predict it’s more like a 30-40% chance of them granting it.

I agree that SCOTUS evades interlocutory appeals as normal procedure.
However, this case is not following normal procedure in the 4th circuit. Both the 4th and 9th pulled the decision up to a en banc review without the panel ever reaching a conclusion. These incalcitrant circuits have forced the cases into interlocutory review against the clear traditional handling procedures of the Supreme Court.

I see it or some combination of the various AWB cases in the 1st,4th, 7th and 9th being taken up - the reasons behind each case in the various circuits varies but Bianchi is likely the most egregious of the ones close to closure.
Given the arguments already presented by both the Plaintiffs and Respondents, there are no questions of fact only those of law in interpreting Heller, Caetano and Bruen (really only Heller are Caetano and Bruen only apply Heller).

Listen to both the panel and en banc oral arguments - the panel colloquy directly addresses Kolbe's rejection with the GVR of the original Bianchi dismissal and it is quite obvious that the panel was likely to move for Bianchi over the state. The state's argument is that Kolbe's holding stands even though SCOTUS contraindicated that but if Kolbe was wrong then the process needs to start over even though SCOTUS (and the panel) rejected the states assertions that the covered weapons are in common use. Then we get to the en banc where the court immediately makes assertions not in the evidence and argues a question not asked.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I agree that SCOTUS evades interlocutory appeals as normal procedure.
However, this case is not following normal procedure in the 4th circuit. Both the 4th and 9th pulled the decision up to a en banc review without the panel ever reaching a conclusion. These incalcitrant circuits have forced the cases into interlocutory review against the clear traditional handling procedures of the Supreme Court.

I see it or some combination of the various AWB cases in the 1st,4th, 7th and 9th being taken up - the reasons behind each case in the various circuits varies but Bianchi is likely the most egregious of the ones close to closure.
Given the arguments already presented by both the Plaintiffs and Respondents, there are no questions of fact only those of law in interpreting Heller, Caetano and Bruen (really only Heller are Caetano and Bruen only apply Heller).

Listen to both the panel and en banc oral arguments - the panel colloquy directly addresses Kolbe's rejection with the GVR of the original Bianchi dismissal and it is quite obvious that the panel was likely to move for Bianchi over the state. The state's argument is that Kolbe's holding stands even though SCOTUS contraindicated that but if Kolbe was wrong then the process needs to start over even though SCOTUS (and the panel) rejected the states assertions that the covered weapons are in common use. Then we get to the en banc where the court immediately makes assertions not in the evidence and argues a question not asked.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. I’m just saying I don’t think the chances of it being granted certiorari are as high as you believe. Yes, these circuits are flipping the bird to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS also only takes less than 100 cases a year and they’ve already got a bunch of other gun related cases to deal with. I don’t see AWBs & mag bans being a high priority issue for them at the moment. In their eyes, they can afford to wait until a proper case reaches them after following the proper procedures, especially considering how easily these cases can be solved. It’s not like time is of the essence for any of these cases, none of the AWB plaintiffs are about to die or anything.

 

[pastera]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. I’m just saying I don’t think the chances of it being granted certiorari are as high as you believe. Yes, these circuits are flipping the bird to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS also only takes less than 100 cases a year and they’ve already got a bunch of other gun related cases to deal with. I don’t see AWBs & mag bans being a high priority issue for them at the moment. In their eyes, they can afford to wait until a proper case reaches them after following the proper procedures, especially considering how easily these cases can be solved. It’s not like time is of the essence for any of these cases, none of the AWB plaintiffs are about to die or anything.

Given the number of other 2A cases that were GVR'd and still linger in the circuits under arguments clearly in contention with SCOTUS' recent 2a holdings, I'm not certain that the history applies to today. SCOTUS has been taking interest in areas that heretofore have been completely avoided. Add to this the massive deviations from normal processes in the 4th and 9th circuits on the issue at hand then the court may take the attitude that if the lower courts will toss historic decorum to the wind then they will step in and correct them like school children.

If they don't take this case now, I see it being relisted and then consolidated with another AWB in order to answer the question of what is a covered arm since that is the biggest issue not covered so far (Rahimi will answer the question of who is "The People")

 

[inerlogic]

Given the number of other 2A cases that were GVR'd and still linger in the circuits under arguments clearly in contention with SCOTUS' recent 2a holdings, I'm not certain that the history applies to today. SCOTUS has been taking interest in areas that heretofore have been completely avoided. Add to this the massive deviations from normal processes in the 4th and 9th circuits on the issue at hand then the court may take the attitude that if the lower courts will toss historic decorum to the wind then they will step in and correct them like school children.

If they don't take this case now, I see it being relisted and then consolidated with another AWB in order to answer the question of what is a covered arm since that is the biggest issue not covered so far (Rahimi will answer the question of who is "The People")

yeh, the Circus courts don't know what "arm" means, they don't know what a "person" is, they think "and" doesn't make a difference in a clause (dangerous AND unusual), they don't think quantity in the wild is evidence of "in common use" they think they can add non-existent language to move the goal posts (in common use for defense) we read the laws and see what they cover and what they don't and dealers sell stripped frames and a bag of spare parts and i have a new glock in MA, the courts read decisions and dicta and do the same shit, lol...
problem is they're using different definitions and adding words that aren't in there... the supremes need toslap the circuits on their dicks.

 

[pastera]

yeh, the Circus courts don't know what "arm" means, they don't know what a "person" is, they think "and" doesn't make a difference in a clause (dangerous AND unusual), they don't think quantity in the wild is evidence of "in common use" they think they can add non-existent language to move the goal posts (in common use for defense) we read the laws and see what they cover and what they don't and dealers sell stripped frames and a bag of spare parts and i have a new glock in MA, the courts read decisions and dicta and do the same shit, lol...
problem is they're using different definitions and adding words that aren't in there... the supremes need toslap the circuits on their dicks.

Listen to Bianchi's en banc oral arguments - they clearly understand the meaning and extent of arms and understand that the law abiding are unquestionably part of the people.
They are trying to dance on the head of pins to narrowly define what constitutes in common use and narrow it to only those actually fired/engaged in an acquitted self defense event.
That and to conflate the similarities between an M-16 and AR-15 into the dicta from Heller's "M-16 and the like" even though a plain reading shows that Scalia was referring to automatic weapons not physical similarities but the lower courts are trying to create another dance around SCOTUS holding like the tiers of scrutiny.

You can see where part of the 4th's panel is trying to break it down from a protection of a class of arms (semi-automatic arms) to argue each individual product such that they can then restrict them because a certain model and configuration of a gun would not hit some arbitrary threshold of production to be "in common use" and to link that use only to actual active engagement in lawful self defense.
In other words they are looking to open a conversation the rabbit holes down in to never ending questions in the details.

 

[inerlogic]

You can see where part of the 4th's panel is trying to break it down from a protection of a class of arms (semi-automatic arms) to argue each individual product such that they can then restrict them because a certain model and configuration of a gun would not hit some arbitrary threshold of production to be "in common use" and to link that use only to actual active engagement in lawful self defense.
In other words they are looking to open a conversation the rabbit holes down in to never ending questions in the details.

and Caetano should've fixed that...

 

[pastera]

and Caetano should've fixed that...

They speak to Caetano but also mention a case out of the 9th where 5 million ARs were deemed not in common use...

The en banc in the 4th is clearly extremely split but it's nowhere near even so

 

[JoseyWales]

4 boxes thinks it will be denied cert based on interlocutory status.

 

[440Sixpack]

...none of the AWB plaintiffs are about to die or anything.

The SCOTUS justices though.... changing the court is what worries me.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

The SCOTUS justices though.... changing the court is what worries me.

Coming next term…….not going to be good for us.

 

[pastera]

4 boxes thinks it will be denied cert based on interlocutory status.

Definitely defer to his expertise.
Hoping scotus takes action though since the lower courts are stalling these cases because they want to keep the topic away from them until a communist can change the court makeup.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Definitely defer to his expertise.
Hoping scotus takes action though since the lower courts are stalling these cases because they want to keep the topic away from them until a communist can change the court makeup.

Exactly

 

[Joeldiaz]

Definitely defer to his expertise.

He the GOAT of knowledgeable guntubers. He’s very rarely wrong. If he says SCOTUS ain’t granting cert, it ain’t happening

 

[Coyote33]

the court may take the attitude that if the lower courts will toss historic decorum to the wind then they will step in and correct them like school children.

Has the SCOTUS ever done this on gun issues? This particular group that is in SCOTUS right now? Have they, or any SCOTUS ever done this on any issue? I'm not a SCOTUS groupie, so have no idea.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Has the SCOTUS ever done this on gun issues?

not that I am aware

This particular group that is in SCOTUS right now?

no; but, in the grand scheme of things, they haven't had much time

Have they, or any SCOTUS ever done this on any issue?

Yes.
Rarely.
Which is central to the point that @pastera and @Joeldiaz are going back and forth about.

That a process exists doesn't mean it's often used. Stability comes from a court that is generally conservative. This is great, until they keep ducking your sacred cow. Then, it's heresy.

 

[LakeTrout]

4 boxes thinks it will be denied cert based on interlocutory status.

What does denied cert mean?

 

[Picton]

What does denied cert mean?

Means SCOTUS will not take it up for adjudication.

 

[pastera]

Has the SCOTUS ever done this on gun issues? This particular group that is in SCOTUS right now? Have they, or any SCOTUS ever done this on any issue? I'm not a SCOTUS groupie, so have no idea.

Caetano marked a weird departure from the norm
It may have been simply because of the uniquely compelling plaintiff and how Mass was railroading her.
But that was on final judgment - it was odd because there was zero expectation that they would take it up

 

[pastera]

What does denied cert mean?

Cert means they will here the case
Denying cert means your screwed

 

[LakeTrout]

Cert means they will here the case
Denying cert means your screwed

That is a bummer

 

[pastera]

not that I am aware

no; but, in the grand scheme of things, they haven't had much time

Yes.
Rarely.
Which is central to the point that @pastera and @Joeldiaz are going back and forth about.

That a process exists doesn't mean it's often used. Stability comes from a court that is generally conservative. This is great, until they keep ducking your sacred cow. Then, it's heresy.

My thing is that I don't see how they allow the lower courts to grab cases from panels into en banc before judgment and without requests.

Just for that reason they should take up the case.

 

[Bfatz]

If Grown ups actually ran the State of Massachusetts


View: https://youtube.com/shorts/Uq5t9SHZGmY?si=CSADUqPEbxZpc863

 

[Lxpony]

Just a friendly reminder that our overlords will keep this bill very quiet until literally the 11th hour so as to prevent preemptive purchasing ahead of the drop dead date as there will be grandfathering. Don't fall victim to their trap of zero prior notice to do quick purchasing. Buy what you can now. You'll thank yourself

 

[Woodsloafer]

Just a friendly reminder that our overlords will keep this bill very quiet until literally the 11th hour so as to prevent preemptive purchasing ahead of the drop dead date as there will be grandfathering. Don't fall victim to their trap of zero prior notice to do quick purchasing. Buy what you can now. You'll thank yourself

Unless they make you sell any banned guns you have out of state within 12 months, then you'll be WTF did I max out my CC for .

JK, but who knows what they'll put in, I think they are emboldened at this point.

.

 

[DarthRevan]

Unless they make you sell any banned guns you have out of state within 12 months, then you'll be WTF did I max out my CC for .

JK, but who knows what they'll put in, I think they are emboldened at this point.

.

If you care enough about that you shouldn’t bother buying any guns and surrender whatever you have now.

 

[LakeTrout]

Unless they make you sell any banned guns you have out of state within 12 months, then you'll be WTF did I max out my CC for .

JK, but who knows what they'll put in, I think they are emboldened at this point.

.

Haha ya that would be so funny. Just like when the British made the colonists sell their guns out of state within 12 months. They were like “Dang nabbit!! I just maxed out my credit trying to defend the right to keep and bear arms. And now I have to sell them out of state.” Remember that?