-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)
- Thread starter Cap'n Mike
- Start date
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
pastera
NES Member
Show me where in the constitution where the government is given the power to decide abortion?
9th and 10th define anything not explicitly assigned to the government is retained by the people and the states.
GL2020
NES Member
But they're very different things. Are states stepping on 2A rights or not is the question to SCOTUS. That is their bailiwick. Abortion is not and never was a constitutionally protected activity and handing it back to the states was undoing a previous bad ruling that should not have been made in the first place.I agree 1000%. How’s it gonna look to take away the states decisions on gun control when they pretty much just gave roe v wade back to the states? Fact is the states that don’t want Gun control don’t have it and the ones who do want it have it and I believe (unfortunately) that is how it will stay. :/ Gonna hope I’m wrong of course
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2025
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 33
I do agree and maybe not the best comparison but whether or not how open and shut this SHOULD be (and yes it 100% should be) that doesn’t necessarily mean anything unfortunately and all I was trying to say is right or wrong about half the country agrees with these bans and that will SURELY have at least some affect on this case since humans generally aren’t very good at making decisions while leaving their own opinions and beliefs out of it. I hope I’m wrong but I have to agree with the original comment that in this day and age/political climate or whatever you want to call it… it’s gonna be a tough sell. This of course is the best chance we’ve had thus far but thinking it’s a slam dunk is just not realistic IN MY OPINION and I believe if it is to go in our favor it’s not going to happen so quickly and not without a ton of pushback. However I’m just a dumb ape and am just speculating
I do agree and maybe not the best comparison but whether or not how open and shut this SHOULD be (and yes it 100% should be) that doesn’t necessarily mean anything unfortunately and all I was trying to say is right or wrong about half the country agrees with these bans and that will SURELY have at least some affect on this case since humans generally aren’t very good at making decisions while leaving their own opinions and beliefs out of it. I hope I’m wrong but I have to agree with the original comment that in this day and age/political climate or whatever you want to call it… it’s gonna be a tough sell. This of course is the best chance we’ve had thus far but thinking it’s a slam dunk is just not realistic IN MY OPINION and I believe if it is to go in our favor it’s not going to happen so quickly and not without a ton of pushback. However I’m just a dumb ape and am just speculating
Half agreement is hyperbole
If that was true we’d see 25 states with AWBs and mag bans. Where there have been gains in gun control it has been in heavy blue states like ours. And in not heavy blue they only won by slim majorities…still outside of heavy blue super majorities gun control isn’t favorable.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2025
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 33
Im not really here to argue bc I want the same thing we all do… however polling shows 56% of adult “Americans” want stricter gun laws, 32% want them to stay the same, and only 12% want them less strict. …I can provide sources if needed.
Edit- I do realize polling can’t always be trusted but it does show somewhat the climate for sure.
pastera
NES Member
Looking at Maryland Shall Issue's Cert Petition, I believe Scotus denied simply because they don't want to take such a ground breaking case along with Snope and/or Ocean
Most of the petition describes what a shit show the 4th circuit is - SCOTUS may not want to take a case where the argument really is that the lower court just rendered a political opinion vice misinterpretation of precedent.
This might be a good omen that they are going to take at least one of the two remaining cases, and most likely Snope (since it would easily cover Ocean State's controversy)
Most of the petition describes what a shit show the 4th circuit is - SCOTUS may not want to take a case where the argument really is that the lower court just rendered a political opinion vice misinterpretation of precedent.
This might be a good omen that they are going to take at least one of the two remaining cases, and most likely Snope (since it would easily cover Ocean State's controversy)
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2025
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 33
Again I hope I’m wrong but I just don’t see this an easy win even with the majority or republicans because people then talk a big game but their actions don’t always reflect that. Trust me I hate to be negative but it’s very rare that things get better for us and not worse when it comes to anything the government does.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
I’m going to assume you don’t follow these SCOTUS cases closely. Like most, you have been beaten down by the anti gun atmosphere in the Northeast and Massachusetts.
If you haven’t already, go read the Bruen and Ceatano decisions and then form an opinion about which way SCOTUS will go.
IMHO, Im 90% sure Snopes will be granted Cert and if so, I’m 99.9% certain all State AWBs will be struck down.
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
FPC has it listed as distributed for conference 1/17. Does that mean they kicked it down the road another 4 days?
rogues
NES Member
From what I understand, this is a good thing.
GL2020
NES Member
Who cares!?! Polls...pfftt
The 1st amendment is not there to protect the speech we like.
And under the 2nd states shouldn't ban the firearms they don't.
p.tice
NES Member
Hopefully. If they don’t grant Ocean State it’s hard to imagine mass changing anything about magazines. Regardless it’s all speculation until an opinion is written.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,229
- Likes
- 3,208
I’ll take $100 of that action at only +800 on each.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
What does the +800 part mean? I’m not much for gambling, but I do win the lottery every day by not playing.
I would be willing to put a Franklin down to back up my prediction.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,229
- Likes
- 3,208
8-1 odds. If I win, you pay me $800. If you win, I pay you $100. If you’re right it’s a 90% proposition, your expected value is positive.What does the +800 part mean? I’m not much for gambling, but I do win the lottery every day by not playing.
I would be willing to put a Franklin down to back up my prediction.
Given that the court refused to take on the Highland Park case, and there’s still no conflict at the circuit level, I’m not nearly as optimistic as you.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Highland Park was not a settled case in the lower circuit.
Snope is settled and has been GVRd once already.
I’ll continue to win by not playing, thank you.
graphite
NES Member
I'm going to assume that they're a sock puppet account until proven otherwise. Joined this month - 6 posts all in this thread.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,229
- Likes
- 3,208
Scalia and Thomas disagreed with you. Quoting from their dissent: "The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed."
Summary judgement is a "settled case."
FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK
Not looking good. SCOTUS probably didn't want to deny cert to all the 2A cases on the same day, so figure on Friday they will drop the denial and head off to their log cabins and country clubs for the 3 day weekend.
That, and in the SCOTUS decision, they basically said Roe was decided on a bad interpretation and Congress had plenty of time to codify abortion access into law but declined to do so.
Congress holds the bag on that one.
Last edited:
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
I apologize. I was confusing the Highland Park case with the Naperville Interlocutory appeal.Scalia and Thomas disagreed with you. Quoting from their dissent: "The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed."
Summary judgement is a "settled case."
FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK
www.law.cornell.edu
Highland Park was denied Cert in 2015, which was pre Bruen and a very different Court.
I predicted that Bruen would do for “Bearing” what Heller did for “Keeping”, and I was right about that.
and I think/hope Snopes will do the same for “Arms”.
It’s like SCOTUS is ruling on the Second Amendment one word at a time.
If I end up being wrong going forward, I will readily admit it.
