2A Preview at SCOTUS

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

A Second Amendment Preview of the Supreme Court’s Long Conference | Duke Center for Firearms Law

[Blackwater 53393]

There’s a lot more to be dealt with if the court will see fit to do it!!

 

The “assault weapons” bans in Illinois, Maryland, California, and the magazine bans in those and other states should be at the top of the list and the bans declared unconstitutional and the several states enjoined from further infringement on those items and their availability!!

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

There’s a lot more to be dealt with if the court will see fit to do it!!

 

The “assault weapons” bans in Illinois, Maryland, California, and the magazine bans in those and other states should be at the top of the list and the bans declared unconstitutional and the several states enjoined from further infringement on those items and their availability!!

Magazine bans:

• Duncan v Bonta
• Gators Guns v Washington
• Hanson v DC

Assault Weapons ban

• Viramontes v Cook County

At least one more is headed to the court soon.

 

Duncan has been up down the entire court system before so it is as briefed as any case can be. There may be a better candidate than Viramontes soon, I don't have the citation handy at the moment.

[John Kloehr]

I think petitions for these are coming soon:

 

Barnett v Raoul, merged with Harrell v Raoul,  Illinois, 7th Circuit. AWB.

Oral arguments in the 7th completed, awaiting ruling.

This case has been up to SCOTUS before at the interlocutory (preliminary injunction) stage. Now the merits are complete. Since it is the 7th, the court will likely uphold the ban. On the off-chance it does not so rule, Illinois will most likely try its own hail-Mary pass if only for the opportunity to delay. So either way, it will go to SCOTUS

 

NAGR v Lamont, Delaware, 2nd circuit. AWB and magazines.

This is getting filed soon. It is at the preliminary injunction stage which SCOTUS rarely takes, a preview of the arguments makes a good case for not waiting on the merits. Snopes made the same argument last term.

 

Did find a link to the petition through NAGR:

 

https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Lamont-cert-petition.pdf

 

This part of it references when Thomas was dissenting from denial of certiorari in Snopes:

 

"

 

Justice Thomas has observed that “further percolation” in this area of law “is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR–15s appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents.” Id., 145 S. Ct. at 1538 (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). This observation is even more true today. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a circuit court could distort Heller’s plain holding to a greater extent than the Second Circuit did in this case.

 

"