Supreme Court schedules Friday Conference.

Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
39
Likes
127
Location
Western MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in concluding that the case should go back to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun rights rulings, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh suggested, the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.
Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional. A full list of the 10 cases distributed for Friday’s conference, as well as a brief description of the question presented in each one, follows the jump.
We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.
Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.
 
I see 10 denials of cert coming...
Have a little faith. Easier said than done, but at least this pandemic panic is starting to open people's eyes to the absurdities of these laws. Many people, both anti's and those who have neither been 2A friends or enemies have suddenly jumped on board to getting a gun "for protection" and are finding just how hard it is to get one, let alone how to understand the existing laws. Trying to be optimistic I guess...
 
Have a little faith. Easier said than done, but at least this pandemic panic is starting to open people's eyes to the absurdities of these laws. Many people, both anti's and those who have neither been 2A friends or enemies have suddenly jumped on board to getting a gun "for protection" and are finding just how hard it is to get one, let alone how to understand the existing laws. Trying to be optimistic I guess...

I know. But it's hard to be optimistic the way things typically go for the orphaned 2A. And you know whatever ruling that is somewhat in our favor will be stupidly narrow and therefore useless. Wish the court would just put the hammer down for once and say enough is enough -- you don't like it, amend the constitution.
 
Kavanaugh is gently reminding his colleagues that SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in sooner or later. He's right about that, and they all know it. The difference is that a certain four colleagues want it to be sooner, a certain four want it to be later... either indefinitely, or after a Democrat is in office.
 
From the OP ;)
That's not a "ruling."

That date is just for whether to actually hear the cases. For the cases they agree to see, there's a period of delay until all arguments (including amici, etc) are due.
Then there's the actual court date.​
Then there's a period of deliberation.​
[...]​
Then there's a decision/ruling.​

It'll be awhile.
 
If they grant cert to one of these cases, is it heard this go around, or do we have to wait until after the summer break?
 
A large number of permitting schemes on that list along with several pissed off SC justices... what is the chance that they combine all of those into one complaint?
Pretty scathing dissent with regards to the level of investigation given to the arguments supporting lower levels of scrutiny.
 
Have a little faith. Easier said than done, but at least this pandemic panic is starting to open people's eyes to the absurdities of these laws. Many people, both anti's and those who have neither been 2A friends or enemies have suddenly jumped on board to getting a gun "for protection" and are finding just how hard it is to get one, let alone how to understand the existing laws. Trying to be optimistic I guess...
I’ve had a couple friends and a relative contact me to ask about getting a gun. None of them were rabid antis, just never cared one way or the other. The MA ones were pretty upset about how difficult and long the process is.

this virus has definitely brought some fence sitters to our side.
 
I’ve had a couple friends and a relative contact me to ask about getting a gun. None of them were rabid antis, just never cared one way or the other. The MA ones were pretty upset about how difficult and long the process is.

this virus has definitely brought some fence sitters to our side.

Hopefully they remember when it’s time to vote.

Bob
 
Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This is going to get denied because it'll rock the boat and seriously disrupt state laws- there's no reason for it anymore, you can't outrun the internet, but the ban on interstate handgun sales is never going to be lifted.

Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
SCOTUS denies these almost every year it feels like.

Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Won't hold my breath, I believe this is the microstamping lawsuit, and its unlikely they're going to say that a push for what a state thinks is a safety regulation all manufacturers need to adopt is a not a bad thing and manufacturers need to step up. Imagine a world where car manufacturers won a lawsuit because the emission regs were too high and a judge said "you know, you're right, that tech doesn't exist yet so you couldn't possibly push yourself to conform"

Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Bundle with Rogers v Grewal

Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Bundle with Rogers v Grewal

Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Bundle with Rogers v Grewal

Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Feds have consistently dodged this bullet. I might be optimistic that this is worthy of a hearing because it's a new law based on an old law put forth by a non-law maker, but as I said, I'm optimistic.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Bundle with Rogers v Grewal

Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.
Going to bundle it with with Rogers v Grewal again.

Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.
I'm not sure I know anything about this case, I imagine this is another reinterpretation of Heller case, and with that I'm going to guess they'll side step it.

Typing all that out- I'm actually going to predict SCOTUS might hear one of the licensing/permit/right to carry cases as it appears to have a large scope of people effected. There's a remote chance for Worman, and they'll ignore the rest.
 
I’ve had a couple friends and a relative contact me to ask about getting a gun. None of them were rabid antis, just never cared one way or the other. The MA ones were pretty upset about how difficult and long the process is.

this virus has definitely brought some fence sitters to our side.
Exactly. At least we look a little less crazy to those family member we may have!
 
After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city. Because the city had repealed the ban last summer, a majority on the court agreed with the city that the challengers’ original claims are moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in concluding that the case should go back to the lower court, but he also indicated that he shared the concern – expressed by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissenting opinion – that the lower courts “may not be properly applying” the Supreme Court’s most recent gun rights rulings, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Therefore, Kavanaugh suggested, the Supreme Court “should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.
Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional. A full list of the 10 cases distributed for Friday’s conference, as well as a brief description of the question presented in each one, follows the jump.
We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.
Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.
Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.
I still don't understand the term "Assault Weapon" and why everyone went along with it. The AR-15 is a semi-auto. There is a Federal Ban on a full auto for a civilian unless you have a machine gun license. I'm a complete novice with AR's but weren't these letters coined from Armalite Rifle, who made this style of rifle decades ago? Which was then conveniently named Assault Rifle including in the dictionary now so the left and anti's can portray owners of them as fanatics? An Assault rifle is what the gents who guard FAKER, Healey, DeLeo etc have. Those guys have rifles that burst more than a single round with pulling the trigger. THAT is an assault rifle.
 
I still don't understand the term "Assault Weapon" and why everyone went along with it. The AR-15 is a semi-auto. There is a Federal Ban on a full auto for a civilian unless you have a machine gun license. I'm a complete novice with AR's but weren't these letters coined from Armalite Rifle, who made this style of rifle decades ago? Which was then conveniently named Assault Rifle including in the dictionary now so the left and anti's can portray owners of them as fanatics? An Assault rifle is what the gents who guard FAKER, Healey, DeLeo etc have. Those guys have rifles that burst more than a single round with pulling the trigger. THAT is an assault rifle.

Again,

Armies used the term "assault rifle" to refer to intermediate-caliber weapons they designed when they decided it was time to move away from the "battle rifle." Nobody who understands firearms uses the term "assault rifle" for anything other than a selective-fire military weapon, which is why you so seldom hear the term.

"Assault weapon" is a legal term of art that Congress devised and then passed into law as a way of describing civilian firearms that looked a certain way.

So "everyone went along with it" because it's the way the law was written. Since then, our side has made a few attempts to change that narrative. I would suggest that we've mostly failed; nobody, even us, uses "modern sporting rifle" all that much. It's far more common for "gun people" just to use the name of the firearm they're talking about (AK, FAL, AR, G3, CETME, what have you) because we understand that those platforms are all different, and that there's no good reason to lump them all together by any name.
 
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is there left to do? Civil disobedience?
 
Last edited:
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is their left to do? Civil disobedience?

"Civil?"

Depends on how you define it.
 
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is their left to do? Civil disobedience?

one of two things: either we become subjects, or war
 
I really have a hard time believing the court will take a stand on mag limits. I just don't they have the balls. Again, what is so frustrating is that when a lot of states enact mag limits or other arbitrary restrictions on 2A, it starts to look reasonable to the court b/c a number of states have done it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then the court feels like it can't wipe that out. This is all because it takes so damn long for cases to get to SCOTUS -- decades and decades -- coupled with the courts lack of resolve to take on high profile 2A cases. Same rationale applies to NFA. It's not going anywhere precisely b/c it's been around forever. This is what happens when the court kicks the can. Once it kicks it, it does so forever. You really need a court with a lot of presence and that takes another pro-2A judge or two b/c Roberts is just so against confrontation on anything that would disrupt the status quo.
 
I will be watching the Worman v Healey with great interest. Imagine being able to by a stripped lower again for $39 or not worry about what magazines you have on you when you are out and about.

Except for this virus nonsense you can still buy that stripped lower for cheap.
 
So, if none of these meaningful cases make it to the SCOTUS and it means we are all stuck forever with the 2A infringements, then the 3 branches of government have failed to protect our fundamental civil rights.

What is their left to do? Civil disobedience?

I don't think there will be anything civil about it.
 
I still don't understand the term "Assault Weapon" and why everyone went along with it. The AR-15 is a semi-auto. There is a Federal Ban on a full auto for a civilian unless you have a machine gun license. I'm a complete novice with AR's but weren't these letters coined from Armalite Rifle, who made this style of rifle decades ago? Which was then conveniently named Assault Rifle including in the dictionary now so the left and anti's can portray owners of them as fanatics? An Assault rifle is what the gents who guard FAKER, Healey, DeLeo etc have. Those guys have rifles that burst more than a single round with pulling the trigger. THAT is an assault rifle.
Machine gun license? That isn't a federal thing.
 
I have some doubts when it comes to the Supreme Court . They seem like they don't want to handle any gun cases and at this point I'm not sure any rulings would be good.
 
Back
Top Bottom