SCOTUS Distributes 10 Second Amendment Cases For 5/1/2020 Conference
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 6 months ago
Josh Blackman writing at Reason.
Immediately after the case was decided, the Supreme Court distributed 6 Second Amendment cases for the May 1, 2020 conference (H/T to the Duke Center for Firearms Blog.)
- Mance v. Barr (5th Circuit)—challenge to federal prohibition on out-of-state handgun purchases
- Pena v. Horan (9th Circuit)—challenge to California’s prohibition on “unsafe” handguns (including “microstamping” requirement)
- Gould v. Lipson (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts’s “may issue” conceal carry licensing regime
- Rogers v. Grewal (3rd Circuit)—challenge to New Jersey’s “may issue” conceal carry licensing regime
- Cheeseman v. Polillo (N.J. Supreme Court)— challenge to New Jersey’s “may issue” conceal carry licensing regime
- Ciolek v. New Jersey (N.J. Supreme Court )—challenge to New Jersey’s “may issue” conceal carry licensing regime
This article was updated.
SCOTUSBlog located four more Second Amendment cases that were distributed for the 5/1/20 conference:
- Worman v. Healey (1st Circuit)—challenge to Massachusetts ban on “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines
- Malpasso v. Pallozzi (4th Circuit)—challenge to Maryland’s “may issue” conceal carry license regime
- Culp v. Raoul (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Illinois’s ban on allowing non-residents to apply for conceal carry license
- Wilson v. Cook County (7th Circuit)—Challenge to Cook County’s ban on “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines
So the game is up after this point and good men everywhere will have to conclude that the Supreme Court cares nothing for their second amendment rights. That means no more claims that the courts will overturn infringements. We’re on our own.
Here’s how we will know. Four Justices clearly stated that the SCOTUS needs to take up a 2A case and stop the hemorrhaging. Roberts said nothing of the sort.
If the four justices do not grant certiorari, that means they know that Roberts would not have gone along with the four on the given case, and the four will not risk an awful decision from the SCOTUS. It’s better to leave the issue alone rather than risk diminution of rights. It could be that Roberts was behind the curtain saying, “But wait, we have the perfect case coming up. Let’s tackle more issues than the NY case brings up.” But the throwdown between Alito and Roberts was so bitter it makes one think that this goes deeper than a chess match.
So we’ll all know very soon where ALL of the justices stand on gun rights. This is a wonderful thing, yes? Good times.
On April 29, 2020 at 7:18 am, Fred said:
None of them think that you ought to own and operate your own tank battalion except it be de-mil. So no, they are operatives for a power that is antithetical to my liberty.
Defend 2A Rights is stupid and a useless slogan of Fudds.
Every Terrible Implement of War is the goal.
On April 29, 2020 at 8:06 am, Ned2 said:
Second Amendment was decided over two hundred years ago. And the Supreme Court doesn’t legislate, they present opinion. So the real battle is within those states in question when the Supreme Court validates their position.
Maybe the people can start ballot harvesting in NJ, CA, MD and MA?
Maybe something along the lines of the second amendment sanctuary counties can make a statement? At least the public in VA now know there’s overwhelming public support for gun rights.
Or, we just start shooting the bastards.
On April 30, 2020 at 11:29 am, X said:
It is frustrating to see so many challenges to “discretionary” CCW permitting. The SCOTUS is NOT going to overturn those laws.
What people in “real ‘Murica” simply DO NOT seem to understand is that in states like MA, NJ, and NY, discretionary handgun permitting is not “merely” a question of CCW, a handgun permit is a permit to OWN and POSSESS a handgun at any time including on private property and in one’s own home. THAT is what is completely discretionary in these states. The Alito dissent in the NYSRPA case gives a good overview of the NY law, including the provision that handgun OWNERSHIP shall only be allowed for persons of “good moral character.” Whatever that is. (Can you imagine if they automatically denied permits to gays or pornographers? Yeah… right.)
IF the permit is issued it may or may not allow CCW, which is also discretionary, but that is an entirely separate question.
Permits in these states can summarily be revoked and guns summarily confiscated at any time without any due process.
On April 30, 2020 at 8:02 pm, X said:
CANADA TO CONFISCATE ALL AR-15s, MINI-14s, M-14/M1a, SKS, M1 CARBINE…
Canadian gun confiscation to be announced possibly tomorrow… will be enacted by an OIC decree, not a vote of Parliament!!!
This is a pure gun grab, all rifles and magazines in Canada have been limited to 5 rds for nearly 30 years…
https://abcnews.go.com/International/canada-make-announcement-assault-weapons-ban-mass-shooting/story?id=70428399
On May 3, 2020 at 8:05 am, Sanders said:
While so many in the 2A community celebrated the Heller decision, I found it quite solemn and telling.
No where in any part of the decision did any of those black-robed lawyers seem to be able to find and interpret, “shall not be infringed.” By pointing that out in Heller, SCOTUS could have put to rest every anti-2A law, and there wouldn’t even be any new 2A cases.
I will argue that without that phrase, the entire 2A doesn’t even make sense. The authors of that amendment knew what they were doing. They were well educated men and knew how to complete a sentence. Without “shall not be infringed.”, the 2A is nothing more than an incomplete sentence. Even the most conservative on SCOTUS could not seem to understand that, or even worse, was willfully ignorant of it.