United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[bullethead]

First off, this is not the place to discuss what guns & gun accessories you have, want, or think would be cool if they existed. Go to this thread for that: https://www.the-sietch.com/index.ph...-shooty-shooty-bang-bangs-the-gun-thread.603/

This thread is for discussing the many interesting legal cases and gun bills/laws sprouting up. To start with, we have SaintJudge Benitez striking down California's ammo background check law:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.60.0.pdf

The Ninth Circuit then decided to issue an emergency stay, killing ammo freedom in less than 2 days:

Ninth Circuit Grants Emergency Stay, California Ammunition Background Check Law Back In Force - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ BREAKING: Rhode v Becerra (9th Circuit): The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted. The district court’s 4/23/20 preliminary injunction order is temporarily stayed pending further court order. The court will address the emergency stay motion by...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on California's magazine restrictions, which Judge Benitez managed to strike down for a week, resulting in a massive wave of Californians stockpiling mags like they were toilet paper in the COVID-19 pandemic:


The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York back in December, and still have not issued a ruling or an opinion on it. Depending on how the majority rules, this could seriously restrict gun control efforts across the country.

A bunch of states, including Virginia, have proposed or passed new gun restrictions, and a few Congressmen have proposed brand new "assault weapons" bans.

On a lighter note, Open Source Defense is putting out politically neutral articles for use in debating the topic, and include what seems like a fairly sensible way to reform the country's gun laws:

Gun policy needs a “Decision Support System” | Open Source Defense

One thing I always say, before arguments begin, is that no two people with the same givens can come to a different conclusion with logic. I…

opensourcedefense.org

Common sense should mean mathematically informed compromise. You figure out what the juice actually is, and then the collective policy makers decide if the juice is worth the squeeze. If the federal government wanted to step in and lay out a mathematically correct compromise position that overrode state firearms laws, this is what that position should look like:

1. Overturn all state prohibitions on magazine size, state-specific prohibitions on types of firearms and accessories owned, and state age restrictions on purchase. Federally bar “assault weapon” bans. Give everyone their AR-15s and their drum magazines back, even in California.
2. Implement a national stand-your-ground law overriding state laws on appropriate firearm engagement.
3. Allow states to choose among either may-issue or constitutional carry categories of firearm concealed carry law. Many shall-issue states today would probably go constitutional carry.
4. Implement a universal background check system, by allowing peer-to-peer buyers to print their own NICS check to show to peer-to-peer sellers.
5. Prohibit perpetrators of violent misdemeanors from passing the background check.

 

[Cherico]

The courts are changing.

Even the 9th which is the most over ruled court in the us is changing once guns rights hits a friendly supreme court a whole lot of stuff dies because a whole lot of it is blantantly unconstitutional.

 

[Spartan303]

The courts are changing.

Even the 9th which is the most over ruled court in the us is changing once guns rights hits a friendly supreme court a whole lot of stuff dies because a whole lot of it is blantantly unconstitutional.

Trump is even flipping the 9th.

 

[Cherico]

Trump is even flipping the 9th.

that's something people will bitch about but needs to happen. The 9th was and Is showing some rather anti 1st amendment tendencies they needed a reality check.

 

[Zachowon]

Arnt Virginia's new gun laws very strict and will most likely be strikes down?

 

[clancyphile]

Arnt Virginia's new gun laws very strict and will most likely be strikes down?

Not by the 4th Circuit, but if cases get to SCOTUS. Obama managed to flip that circuit.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York will be a big tell. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are very strong on the Second Amendment, and Gorsuch appears to also be as well.

It really depends if the threat that Sheldon Whitehouse made in the brief he and four other Senators (including Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin) will successfully intimidate Roberts into flipping. Democrats could very well see a win for the New York affiliate of the NRA as grounds to pack the court.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

So New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York was ruled moot today, which isn't really a surprise.

Opinion analysis: Court sends New York Second Amendment case back to lower courts without ruling on the merits - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court sent a major Second Amendment case back to the lower courts today, ruling that the challenge to a New York City restriction on the transport of guns is “moot” – that is, no longer a live controversy – because the city changed the rule last year. But some of the court’s more conserv

www.scotusblog.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf

We also got a 31 page dissent from Alito that was joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, and a 2 paragraph concurrence from Kavanaugh where he says:

I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Honestly, this is probably the best possible outcome. The case was moot under current SCOTUS mootness doctrine and changing that (which they should do) was never going to happen here, so as a consolation prize we got a plain, direct, statement from four justices that they 1) are actively looking for a 2A case, 2) that they are actively displeased with how the lower courts have been handling those cases, and 3) that their patience is basically gone.

Since it takes four votes to grant a case and SCOTUS has been holding a great many 2A cases pending this cases decision; we are very likely to see at least one of them granted in rapid order. If the four of them are sufficiently annoyed, we might even see them take several of them and provide multiple rulings to clarify things.

 

[bullethead]

Honestly, this is probably the best possible outcome. The case was moot under current SCOTUS mootness doctrine and changing that (which they should do) was never going to happen here, so as a consolation prize we got a plain, direct, statement from four justices that they 1) are actively looking for a 2A case, 2) that they are actively displeased with how the lower courts have been handling those cases, and 3) that their patience is basically gone.

Since it takes four votes to grant a case and SCOTUS has been holding a great many 2A cases pending this cases decision; we are very likely to see at least one of them granted in rapid order. If the four of them are sufficiently annoyed, we might even see them take several of them and provide multiple rulings to clarify things.

Here's a database of potential SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases:

Gun Case Tracker Powered by FPC - JoinFPC.org - Airtable

Explore the "Gun Case Tracker Powered by FPC - JoinFPC.org" base on Airtable.

airtable.com

Here's a shitton of cases about carrying guns and "assault weapons" for the May 1 (this Friday) conference, plus a case regarding California's microstamping BS that has blocked new pistols from being sold in the state. They're literally spoiled for choice.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Here's a database of potential SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases:

Gun Case Tracker Powered by FPC - JoinFPC.org - Airtable

Explore the "Gun Case Tracker Powered by FPC - JoinFPC.org" base on Airtable.

airtable.com

Here's a shitton of cases about carrying guns and "assault weapons" for the May 1 (this Friday) conference, plus a case regarding California's microstamping BS that has blocked new pistols from being sold in the state. They're literally spoiled for choice.

Ah it will be fun to smell the regressive left's tears over these cases verdicts. After all SCOTUS does tend to follow precedent so if these cases break down the way they probably will it make their vendetta of murdering the 2nd Amendment a lot harder to achieve.

 

[bullethead]

Here's an interesting assessment of the NYPSA case and an exciting update:

What SCOTUS's New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Mootness Means Now - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ By LKB As was reported earlier, the Supreme Court has punted today in NYSR&PA v City of New York, finding in a short, unsigned per curiam opinion that New York’s last-minute gamesmanship rendered the case moot. At the same time, the Court indicating that on remand...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

As I indicated in an earlier write-up of this case, the liberal wing of the Court may well rue this decision, as it may now be used to deny such relief in many other civil rights cases that are near and dear to their hearts.

Justice Alito also decried the Court blessing what was transparent gamesmanship designed to thwart Supreme Court review of the New York City law. Similar to arguments made previously by TTAG commentators, he wondered where that could go:

Or take this example. A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit? Suppose the court, following the precedent set by today’s decision, holds that the case is moot, and suppose that the woman brings a second case challenging the new law on the same ground. If the State repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certification by two doctors, would the second suit be moot? And what if the State responds to a third suit by enacting replacement legislation demanding certification by one doctor? Mootness doctrine does not require such results. A challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional law does not become moot with the enactment of new legislation that reduces but does not eliminate the injury originally alleged. And that is the situation here.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm really hoping for Worman v Massachusetts.

 

[Tzeentchean Perspective]

Honestly, this is probably the best possible outcome. The case was moot under current SCOTUS mootness doctrine and changing that (which they should do) was never going to happen here, so as a consolation prize we got a plain, direct, statement from four justices that they 1) are actively looking for a 2A case, 2) that they are actively displeased with how the lower courts have been handling those cases, and 3) that their patience is basically gone.

Good to know. I stumbled across an commentary piece about the ruling on Ammoland and I could tell they were squeezing out potential anxiety for clicks:

Supreme Court Sides with New York City In Gun Transport Case Decision

The Supreme Court’s gun transport case decision gives Cuomo and others who seek to destroy the Second Amendment” confidence that the Court will do nothing to rein them in.

www.ammoland.com

Is Kavanaugh so really afraid the Radical Left will impeach him, as they have threatened? Does he think they will make good their threat if Biden defeats Trump in the upcoming General Election and if the Democrats not only hold onto the House, but win a majority in the Senate, too? Is the New York City gun transport case just an anomaly or does it signal what we may expect from Kavanaugh in the future: currying favor with the Radical Left and betraying intellectual honesty to halt an impeachment proceeding and trial?

Gee, I don't know, writer, how about you look over previous 5-4 Supreme court rulings that upheld Trump's policies and try to find any signs of "currying favor" there?
I believe @Emperor Tippy is right and more far-reaching cases may be pursued to the end instead. I turned away from TTAG because they keep putting out melodramatic bait articles, but that commentary seems grounded too.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a good summary of what all the 2nd Amendment cases the Supreme Court is going to be looking at on Friday:

After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference - SCOTUSblog

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 –

www.scotusblog.com

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.

 

[LordsFire]

Thank you for providing that summary.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a date to keep an eye on - June 15:

NRA v. City of Los Angeles - Michel & Associates, P.C.

Case Name: National Rifle Association of America and John Doe v. City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, and Holly L. Wolcott Case No.: 2:19-cv-03212-SVW-GJS U.S. District Court, Central District of California Filing Date Filing Party Document Description 10/30/2020 Court Order Granting Motion to...

michellawyers.com

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-04-30-Proposed-Order-ISO-Plaintiffs-Mtn-for-Attys-Fees.pdf

Basically, NRA vs LA is about LA putting out really biased statements about the NRA and demanding any business associating with them to tell the city that they're associated with the NRA, which is a big 1st Amendment violation. The attorneys for the NRA want the city to cover their costs, since they pretty much curbstomped the city in the case.

Also, here's a link showing off legal action in a bunch of cases in lower courts:

FPCLaw.org - FPC Law Legal Action

Support gun rights and ensure a victory for the Second Amendment!

www.firearmspolicy.org

It's a chronological list, so most of the stuff in 2020 is attempts to stop Coronavirus lockdowns of gun stores and carry restrictions.

 

[Cherico]

This is a good thing for LA the city government was having issues with authoritarianism, corruption and incompetence before the virus losing this suit will be a nice reality check for them.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a wild NFA related case:

Panel Asked to Toss Gun Conviction of Accused Shooting Plotter

The attorney for a man accused of plotting to shoot up a Florida mosque asked an 11th Circuit panel Friday to throw out a related firearms conviction.

www.courthousenews.com

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (CN) — The attorney for a man accused of plotting to shoot up a Florida mosque asked an 11th Circuit panel Friday to throw out a related firearms conviction.

If successful, the appeal brought by Bernandino Bolatete, convicted in 2018 of possessing an unregistered silencer, could upend portions of a gun control law passed more than 80 years ago.

Bolatete, a 72-year-old green card holder from the Philippines, was the focus of a month-long investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and federal authorities in 2017, during which Bolatete told an undercover detective about his plan to attack the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida during worship services.

After the detective sold an unregistered silencer to Bolatete for $100, FBI agents made an arrest and searched his home and car, uncovering 11 guns and more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

After a jury found him guilty of possessing an unregistered silencer in 2018, U.S. District Judge Harvey Schlesinger sentenced him to five years in federal prison. The law allows for up to 10 years.

...

During Thursday’s oral arguments before the 11th Circuit, held via teleconference due to the Covid-19 pandemic, public defender Lynn Bailey made her case on why Bolatete’s conviction exceeds Congress’s power to tax and violates the Second Amendment by requiring him to pay for a constitutionally protected right.

Bailey questioned why Bolatete, the buyer of the unregistered silencer, had a duty to register the device and purchase the tax stamp, and not the seller – in this case, the undercover detective.

“It makes more sense to me for the maker or transferor” to pay the tax, Bailey told the three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court. “They are the ones responsible for paying the tax … But here you are punishing the transferee with 10 years in prison ostensibly for a tax that someone else is required to pay, and he doesn’t know whether it’s paid or not.”

Like, I don't think anything will come out of this, but I'd love to see the FBI get reamed for making an unregistered suppressor in whatever document they put out.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Ugh.

On Second Amendment, Supreme Court Abdicates Its Duty to Say What the Law Is

We’ll have to wait even longer for the justices to correct the massive resistance to the right to armed self‐defense.

www.cato.org

This is disappointing. Hopefully Trump wins and gets to replace Ginsburg or Breyer. If that happens before SCOTUS starts digging into 2A cases then we might get some really good precedents.

Still, I kinda wish the other four had been willing to make Roberts shit or get off the pot.

 

[S'task]

Ugh.

On Second Amendment, Supreme Court Abdicates Its Duty to Say What the Law Is

We’ll have to wait even longer for the justices to correct the massive resistance to the right to armed self‐defense.

www.cato.org

This is disappointing. Hopefully Trump wins and gets to replace Ginsburg or Breyer. If that happens before SCOTUS starts digging into 2A cases then we might get some really good precedents.

Still, I kinda wish the other four had been willing to make Roberts shit or get off the pot.

I have to wonder what kind of favors Roberts had to call in to get that sixth vote against, or what kind of bullshit that the Progressive have on Roberts to make him so consistently vote with them on hot button issues. It's getting to the point of ridiculousness. If it's a critical issue where pretty much all logical jurisprudence would point to a conservative victory, Roberts fucking pussies out and sides with the liberals on the court.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I have to wonder what kind of favors Roberts had to call in to get that sixth vote against, or what kind of bullshit that the Progressive have on Roberts to make him so consistently vote with them on hot button issues. It's getting to the point of ridiculousness. If it's a critical issue where pretty much all logical jurisprudence would point to a conservative victory, Roberts fucking pussies out and sides with the liberals on the court.

You need four votes to grant cert. Those four absolutely existed. You need five to win.

The most likely outcome was that one of the four wasn't confident that Roberts would vote to support a strong second amendment and so refused to grant on the theory that they can produce the four votes needed if/when that changes.

Personally, I think they were wrong and forcing the issue before the court will result in pro-2A outcomes but I do think that Roberts is liable to go for a minimalist opinion while the other four would be much more expansive.