H4885 Lawfare Speculation Funhouse Megathread

[pastera]

There are simply too many assault weapons bans in process for this to survive long.
Either Bianchi in the 4th or Naperville in the 7th (or both) will make it to SCOTUS next term.
That means this is cleared up by June of 25.

So all of the ban language is either going away or they will be looking at collecting up every scary rifle in private hands.

We only need to get through the next ten months - two of which are under the old system.

 

[Woodsloafer]

There are simply too many assault weapons bans in process for this to survive long.
Either Bianchi in the 4th or Naperville in the 7th (or both) will make it to SCOTUS next term.
That means this is cleared up by June of 25.

So all of the ban language is either going away or they will be looking at collecting up every scary rifle in private hands.

We only need to get through the next ten months - two of which are under the old system.

This, I talked a few people out of buying stuff they didn't immediately need if they didn't have the cash for it (and even if they had cash for it told them to buy ammo instead). Told them it was foolish to put shit on their plastic just to have another AR or buy a Sig Spear, SCAR, etc. when it is likely this will pass somehow in the not too distant future. If a person didn't have an AR it could make sense to buy one, but to start buying multiples (just to have because) or paying marked up prices on overrated Spears just did not (make sense), IMO.

 

[drgrant]

One thing I wanted to post in the other thread but I think is more appropriate here.... I think one challenge is there are layerss here.

Honestly I'm more concerned about the stupid roster bullshit (and the legality of that) as well as the definition of frames and the like, vs the AWB itself.

Although if the AWB gets clocked HARD.... there will be nothing stopping some MA resident from driving to NH or ME to buy a lawful gun. But that doesnt help small to medium dealers here will be trapped. And pant shitters will still be running around like fags going "ooooly oooly ooh its still iweeegul" etc. Well, at least until someone puts an AR15 on the
roster. etc. Also the way the list shit blocks receivers is retarded. Although it makes me wonder, due to the farcical nature... like a lower would pass a drop test... because it can't fire anything. This is literally rage inducing, like... "IF IT WERENT FOR MY HORSE, I WOULDNT HAVE SPENT THAT YEAR IN COLLEGE!"

One thing ive always been pissed about... I wish Dearth vs Holder had actually been "played out" to a real legal conclusion. Because basically thats a core of a lot of this stuff. IMHO the ATF has no right to regulate someones RKBA rights based on residency vs "where they are standing when they go to buy a gun". Steven Dearth's case, as a plaintiff, was particularly interesting because other than being a US citizen, he was technically not a resident of any state in the US. Like if I cruised around in an RV

 

[pastera]

One thing I wanted to post in the other thread but I think is more appropriate here.... I think one challenge is there are layerss here.

Honestly I'm more concerned about the stupid roster bullshit (and the legality of that) as well as the definition of frames and the like, vs the AWB itself.

Although if the AWB gets clocked HARD.... there will be nothing stopping some MA resident from driving to NH or ME to buy a lawful gun. But that doesnt help small to medium dealers here will be trapped. And pant shitters will still be running around like fags going "ooooly oooly ooh its still iweeegul" etc. Well, at least until someone puts an AR15 on the
roster. etc. Also the way the list shit blocks receivers is retarded. Although it makes me wonder, due to the farcical nature... like a lower would pass a drop test... because it can't fire anything. This is literally rage inducing, like... "IF IT WERENT FOR MY HORSE, I WOULDNT HAVE SPENT THAT YEAR IN COLLEGE!"

One thing ive always been pissed about... I wish Dearth vs Holder had actually been "played out" to a real legal conclusion. Because basically thats a core of a lot of this stuff. IMHO the ATF has no right to regulate someones RKBA rights based on residency vs "where they are standing when they go to buy a gun". Steven Dearth's case, as a plaintiff, was particularly interesting because other than being a US citizen, he was technically not a resident of any state in the US. Like if I cruised around in an RV

Agree with all.

However Bruen footnote 2 speaks to abusive schemes

That said, because any permit-
ting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitu-
tional challenges ...

That coupled with the near exclusion of all long arms from commercial sale makes it likely that the long gun roster will have a similar fate as the state police pre enforcement of the new training requirements.
I see either an emergency bill written or a blanket "long guns roster" that includes all long arms not specifically included on the forthcoming assault-style firearm roster.

 

[drgrant]

That coupled with the near exclusion of all long arms from commercial sale makes it likely that the long gun roster will have a similar fate as the state police pre enforcement of the new training requirements.
I see either an emergency bill written or a blanket "long guns roster" that includes all long arms not specifically included on the forthcoming assault-style firearm roster.

I think the heat is going to get turned up on that end of the deal pretty fast, because there are potentially non-rkba reasons linked to that stuff. EG, its possible some distributor like camfour or whoever could try to file an injunction based on "restraint of trade" or something based on that one piece of law. It doesnt help them that theres literally no test regimen ascribed thats appropriate for rifles and shotguns etc. Like the handgun testing is f***ing stupid, but at least theres a scintilla of logic embedded in it. This is literally "long guns are banned unless they are on a list".

Despitte calling receivers firearms they also dont say a single thing about how something like a bare receiver would get tested. What are they going to do, drop it on the ground 3 times and call it good? it cant fire anything so you cant perform a drop test on it, at least not in a typical sense.

 

[pastera]

I think the heat is going to get turned up on that end of the deal pretty fast, because there are potentially non-rkba reasons linked to that stuff. EG, its possible some distributor like camfour or whoever could try to file an injunction based on "restraint of trade" or something based on that one piece of law. It doesnt help them that theres literally no test regimen ascribed thats appropriate for rifles and shotguns etc. Like the handgun testing is f***ing stupid, but at least theres a scintilla of logic embedded in it. This is literally "long guns are banned unless they are on a list".

Despitte calling receivers firearms they also dont say a single thing about how something like a bare receiver would get tested. What are they going to do, drop it on the ground 3 times and call it good? it cant fire anything so you cant perform a drop test on it, at least not in a typical sense.

Heller places regulations on commercial sale as presumptively lawful.
Heller and Bruen also burden shift to the state to show an arm can be banned because it is unusually dangerous.

So Mass could ban guns shown to be prone to firing without intentional activation of the trigger when the body of guns in their class do not suffer from the same issue (competition guns that are not drop safe would not be unusually dangerous since as a class they have very light triggers by design)

But what they cannot do is ban from sale entire classes of arms in common use which are not demonstrably unusually dangerous- which the roster does since any arm is banned unless the manufacturer proves it is not unusually dangerous.
Mass has impermissiblely shift the burden of proof to the commercial market.

As this effects every person in Mass, it should actually get struck even at a lower court level.

 

[Woodsloafer]

Heller places regulations on commercial sale as presumptively lawful.
Heller and Bruen also burden shift to the state to show an arm can be banned because it is unusually dangerous.

So Mass could ban guns shown to be prone to firing without intentional activation of the trigger when the body of guns in their class do not suffer from the same issue (competition guns that are not drop safe would not be unusually dangerous since as a class they have very light triggers by design)

But what they cannot do is ban from sale entire classes of arms in common use which are not demonstrably unusually dangerous- which the roster does since any arm is banned unless the manufacturer proves it is not unusually dangerous.
Mass has impermissiblely shift the burden of proof to the commercial market.

As this effects every person in Mass, it should actually get stuck struck even at a lower court level.

Struck not stuck, correct?

 

[drgrant]

Heller places regulations on commercial sale as presumptively lawful.
Heller and Bruen also burden shift to the state to show an arm can be banned because it is unusually dangerous.

So Mass could ban guns shown to be prone to firing without intentional activation of the trigger when the body of guns in their class do not suffer from the same issue (competition guns that are not drop safe would not be unusually dangerous since as a class they have very light triggers by design)

But what they cannot do is ban from sale entire classes of arms in common use which are not demonstrably unusually dangerous- which the roster does since any arm is banned unless the manufacturer proves it is not unusually dangerous.
Mass has impermissiblely shift the burden of proof to the commercial market.

As this effects every person in Mass, it should actually get stuck even at a lower court level.

Of course part of the problem is what are the odds that a moonbat court is going to say " hey wait a minute this is too far even if I agree with it" although we were surprised by that the recent nj awb ruling?

 

[pastera]

Of course part of the problem is what are the odds that a moonbat court is going to say " hey wait a minute this is too far even if I agree with it" although we were surprised by that the recent nj awb ruling?

NJ was a rear guard action.
By striking the AR from the law for the stated reason that defense provided sufficient evidence for that particular arm's 2a protection, the court impermissibly shifted the burden to the people.
Yet, many people are calling this a win - it's not a loss but it's certainly not a win.

Bianchi needs to hit SCOTUS and SCOTUS needs to smash the lower courts - simply pointing to the 1792 militia acts enumerated items required for duty as a starting point of unifringible protection.

And those items include all items required to fire the required gun(s)
Which gun do they list first? A musket
Given the more accurate rifle was employed in the revolution very effectively, why first call out a musket?
Because it was the more common arm that was easier to use and faster to load. This points to magazine fed modern sporting rifles as the quintessential protected arm above ALL others even the handgun.

The rifle is called out with a required load out 20% lower than the musket to show it's inherently higher accuracy.

However both show that 20 rounds is the minimum effective loadout even when simply training. And the limit is not an upper bound - it is seen as the minimum requirement and imposed even on the pauper.
This equipment is seen as so important that it is expressly exempted from "all suites, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or payment of taxes.
Your arms therefore are elevated above even your home in their protection.

Yet none of our cases seem to rely on the first laws passed by the founders that clearly show the doctrine that to be an American is to go armed.

 

[Coyote33]

Heller places regulations on commercial sale as presumptively lawful.
Heller and Bruen also burden shift to the state to show an arm can be banned because it is unusually dangerous.

So Mass could ban guns shown to be prone to firing without intentional activation of the trigger when the body of guns in their class do not suffer from the same issue (competition guns that are not drop safe would not be unusually dangerous since as a class they have very light triggers by design)

But what they cannot do is ban from sale entire classes of arms in common use which are not demonstrably unusually dangerous- which the roster does since any arm is banned unless the manufacturer proves it is not unusually dangerous.
Mass has impermissiblely shift the burden of proof to the commercial market.

As this effects every person in Mass, it should actually get struck even at a lower court level.

Is this in any of the lawsuits that are happening?

 

[pastera]

Is this in any of the lawsuits that are happening?

Not any that are close to SCOTUS that I can remember right now.

First we need Snopes (Bianchi) to get Cert.
Heller Dicta says that regulations on the commercial sale of arms are presumptively constitutional.
We need the definitive language on exactly what a protected arm is - language that a lower court is definitively locked into.

The roster issue in Mass is a different story - they simply don't have a way to approve long arms for sale any therefore have banned, impermissibly, all long arms
So this question goes back to Heller's base holding - banning an entire class of arms, handguns, is not permitted. And in that, the exclusion for sale of all longarms is unconstitutional.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

There are simply too many assault weapons bans in process for this to survive long.
Either Bianchi in the 4th or Naperville in the 7th (or both) will make it to SCOTUS next term.
That means this is cleared up by June of 25.

So all of the ban language is either going away or they will be looking at collecting up every scary rifle in private hands.

We only need to get through the next ten months - two of which are under the old system.

Would you care to make a wager on June of 2025? Cert has already been denied for National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois -- is there another Naperville case that's still alive?

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Would you care to make a wager on June of 2025? Cert has already been denied for National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois -- is there another Naperville case that's still alive?

SCOTUS Denied Cert because the Illinois case hadn’t reached final Judgement. The Maryland case has.

 

[Picton]

SCOTUS Denied Cert because the Illinois case hadn’t reached final Judgement. The Maryland case has.

That's the one I'm watching.

 

[pastera]

Would you care to make a wager on June of 2025? Cert has already been denied for National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois -- is there another Naperville case that's still alive?

SCOTUS Rejects National Association for Gun Rights’ “Assault Weapon” and Mag Ban Case

Today, the Supreme Court rejected certiorari in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville. The case will now proceed to the discovery, trial, and summary judgment phases at the district court.

nationalgunrights.org

Today, the Supreme Court rejected certiorari in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville. The case will now proceed to the discovery, trial, and summary judgment phases at the district court.

Naperville was a petition for interlocutory appeal - SCOTUS had made it abundantly clear they will not take any 2a cases on an interlocutory basis, period.

So Naperville being denied was a forgone conclusion and has no bearing on Snopes (Bianchi) since Bianchi has reached judgment at the en banc circuit level - it is now ripe for SCOTUS review.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

So Naperville being denied was a forgone conclusion and has no bearing on Snopes (Bianchi) since Bianchi has reached judgment at the en banc circuit level - it is now ripe for SCOTUS review.

Just so. That means Naperville has exactly zero chance of reaching the Supreme Court by June of next year. I doubt we'll see a 7th circuit decision by then. Bianchi is alive, but the average time from grant of cert by the Supreme Court to decision is well over 500 days. And remember, the court hasn't granted cert, so even if the court grants cert the clock won't start running for at least another month or so.

So I stand by my offer. If you are willing to wager, name the amount and odds.

 

[pastera]

Just so. That means Naperville has exactly zero chance of reaching the Supreme Court by June of next year. I doubt we'll see a 7th circuit decision by then. Bianchi is alive, but the average time from grant of cert by the Supreme Court to decision is well over 500 days. And remember, the court hasn't granted cert, so even if the court grants cert the clock won't start running for at least another month or so.

So I stand by my offer. If you are willing to wager, name the amount and odds.

You may be right - but there are no facts in dispute
Bianchi was already granted cert in a GVR. No new evidence or arguments were offered in the en banc review.
To the contrary the majority admitted that under Bruen Maryland's regulations fail but the court simply refused to apply the 2nd to Maryland or other states in its circuit.
The case has been fully briefed and is ripe for summary judgment - and that doesn't require 500 days

 

[Coyote33]

The roster issue in Mass is a different story - they simply don't have a way to approve long arms for sale any therefore have banned, impermissibly, all long arms
So this question goes back to Heller's base holding - banning an entire class of arms, handguns, is not permitted. And in that, the exclusion for sale of all longarms is unconstitutional.

So, does someone need to sue the state to begin this? How does this move forward?

So I stand by my offer. If you are willing to wager, name the amount and odds.

Refresh us. What was your bet again? Just curious.

 

[pastera]

So, does someone need to sue the state to begin this? How does this move forward?

Yes, the problem is that until the law is active AND the state threatens or takes action for a non-roster arm, there is no torte and the lower courts will toss any case.

Refresh us. What was your bet again? Just curious.

He is trying to get me to bet that SCOTUS takes Snopes (Bianchi) up and provides an opinion by June 25.
He says it takes 500+ days for a SC opinion on average - not sure where that number comes from.

I have been abundantly clear that I believe they will take up Snopes this session given the history of this specific case and if they do then we will have an opinion by the end of the session which is June of next year.
However, this year they actually extended the session in order to release several opinions very late. So I'm certain if I did bet and SCOTUS dropped a holy grail opinion killing all bans, red flags, the ATF and the NFA/GCA but did so on July 1st he would claim victory.

 

[Picton]

Yes, the problem is that until the law is active AND the state threatens or takes action for a non-roster arm, there is no torte and the lower courts will toss any case.

Hence, the state's unlikelihood to EVER design and validate any testing that would put anything on the new roster.

They might treat the gun roster the same way they just treated the new "training requirement," by imposing it, doing nothing about it until sued, and then backing off. Meaning, the onerous new requirements are still out there, but they're not being enforced "temporarily."

In the case of the non-rostered arms, that might provide enough legal-limbo ambiguity to convince some companies not to ship here, wholesale or retail. Which accomplishes the state's purpose (no more sales) without actually triggering a torte.

Who knows?

 

[Coyote33]

and if they do then we will have an opinion by the end of the session which is June of next year.

When you say opinion, do you mean ruling? Are those the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

 

[pastera]

When you say opinion, do you mean ruling? Are those the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

Opinion = ruling
Opinion is the correct term since we are a free people without a monarch to "rule" over our disputes.

 

[vicorjh]

View: https://youtu.be/o2H-6bsu52c?si=MDe_pwhGAezidpis