- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,211
- Likes
- 3,395
So how long do the lawyers here think the 4th circuit will drag their feet?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
pastera
NES Member
Now that SCOTUS denied cert - a lot longer...
The question is if the en banc tries to split the baby to muddy the waters extending things out even further - something like you can't ban but can license and tax (think NFA)
The anti side knows they are one or two losses at SCOTUS away from clear case law doing away with licensing and AW and capacity bans altogether - they need to keep things in the courts long enough to change the makeup of SCOTUS so they can "settle" the case law away from Bruen.
VTski4x4
NES Member
FPC still has their Illinois AWB case too. That brief is being heard on Thursday. It will likely face the same fate, but who knows.
Chances are that the reason it wasn’t denied cert today is because one or more SCOTUS Justices are writing a dissent from the denial of cert, attacking the reasoning used by the 7th Circuit to uphold the AWB & mag bans.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,211
- Likes
- 3,395
And the Supremes break for their 4 month summer vacation next month.
This is why the correct action for SCOTUS was to explicitly strike every law passed after the constitution was ratified on the spot. Anything less is just handing the warfare victory to Dems. They will just keep passing laws because SCOTUS never blanket strikes them or removes prosecutor/cop/judge immunity to hold them personally responsible.
Isn't that kind of where they are right now?
Ha ha. Can't say that with a straight face I bet.
I’m only getting about 60% of the letters that are in my ID emails, when I complain my mail stops coming altogether. If I cared I’d do something about it.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Probably till the results of Novembers Presidential Election are decided.
If anyone thinks Trump is as bad on 2A as Biden, think again.
So, sometime in mid January 2025?
From CT's Grant v. Lamont. Plaintiff (Grant) files response brief.
Link to brief PDF: https://www.ccdl.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/108-2024-05-23-Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf
Grant v. Lamont: Response Brief Filed - Connecticut Citizens Defense League
RESPONSE BRIEF FILEDThursday, 5/23/24 Connecticut Citizens Defense League filed a Response Brief in the Grant v. Lamont case. This brief is asking the court to reconsider our preliminary injunction that was denied by Judge Arterton prior to her retirement. If successful, injunctive relief could...
www.ccdl.us
Link to brief PDF: https://www.ccdl.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/108-2024-05-23-Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf
NRA wins the 1A case against NY at SCOTUS.
NRA vs Vullo
Last paragraph
"(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."
NRA vs Vullo
Last paragraph
"(d) The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners. Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views. The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries."
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
Trump sucks on 2A. But he will nominate more pro-2A judges. Which as we have seen is YUGE. . His greatest (and only??) legacy. And it's a big one.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
This is great news. Thanks for sharing it!
It's a shame you've buried it in a 200+ page thread about a different case.
Found Vullo thread AFTER putting it here. This seemed to be a good place to continue to put gun related rulings.
Will cross post here: NRA vs Vullow
VTski4x4
NES Member
Strong incentive for SCOTUS to take up the AWB case they're reading by FPC.
From that article:
Wasn't there just a case in California that said felons are no longer prohibited? Or is that only for California?
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,770
- Likes
- 2,573
Yes. It applies (for now) to the entire 9th circuit for those convicted of non-violent felonies. The 3rd circuit reached the same conclusion, while four other circuits came to the opposite result. This is a pretty good summary of the current state of things, and it's one we've already paid for.
SCotUS may take the case not on 2A grounds, but to set precedent how felons are and how or are not restored their rights upon completing their sentences. Could result in not only 2A rights being restored, but voting and other rights denied to felons by various states and the feds.
