CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
-
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
pastera
NES Member
GVR - Grant (cert), Vacate (lower decision), Remand for further consideration.
Snope absolutely could be GVR'd again with the remand instructions written to rub their en banc noses in the shit pile.
Caetano was taken up per curiam but was essentially a GVR - thr Mass SJC's opinion was vacated and remanded with the specific instruction that stun guns are covered arms.
GVRing Snope with a very clear and extremely demeaning remand instruction would be an embarrassing situation for the 4th, and therefore it should be done.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Underrated comment
If they went that route and the 4th actually did toss Maryland's AWB, then that would create a circuit split and SCOTUS would grant cert.
We're all smart enough to know that the 4th is never going to do that tho, so they will repeat the same ruling and SCOTUS will do the same thing so long as Jane Roberts is the Chief Justice and Barrett is playing sidekick.
Even post Bruen this is still the status quo of the Supreme Court with the 2nd Amendment.
Second Amendment is a 'disfavored right' in the Supreme Court, Thomas says in cert-denial dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas asserted the Second Amendment is “a disfavored right” in the U.S. Supreme Court when he dissented Tuesday from the denial of certiorari in a gun case.
www.abajournal.com
The more I think about it, the more I think they are just stalling so states can put up more bans, as someone said earlier. Then when enough states do that, they will pull 2A out of a hat, and say "This is a state's rights issue, we'll let states handle it.", after it is already all over for 2A. I really hope not, and hope something positive happens Monday, but after Ch. 180's middle of the night antics whacked us all here in MA, nothing surprises me any more.
pastera
NES Member
2a is not a states rights issue though.
It is clearly enumerated therefore outside the state's purview.
The issue is the lines are blurred and the 9th and 10th have become meaningless
they really can’t
Technically they could but then they will disregard like 4 previous cases that most of these judges ruled on and wrote concurrence/dissents for.
If Roberts is worried about legacy he should be pushing this front and center. They backed themselves into a corner really
SCOTUS turning around and saying its a states rights issue would likely fly in the face prior opinions including McDonald v Chicago SCOTUS opinion where they held...
And...
And they go on to say...
If they deny Snope they are weakening Miller, Heller, Chicago, Caetano, Bruen and possibly Rahimi. They would continue to allow the states to run unchecked in those state's march to ultimately ban guns to the law abiding. By not taking up Snope they are allowing the 2nd Amendment to continue it's march in being treated as a second class right.
If the NFA is really the 800lb gorilla in the SCOTUS chambers, that's not a case that Roberts is likely to be around for as the Chief as that's something 10 years down the road and he'll be retired by then.
The only NFA case I could see reaching the court before then is the state bans on NFA items and actually, I think that may be playing a factor into why the court (if it's even aware that states to ban NFA firearms) is so hesitant on Snope. If they toss AWB it's possible that they have to write it in a way that it also affects NFA firearms, which means those dreaded machine guns are included and the headlines will read " SUPREME COURT LEGALIZES MACHINE GUNS!"
Cuz that's how the fake news and low information pleb works. Even tho it's not anything to do with invalidating the NFA law as a whole, but simply telling states they cannot ban people from owning machine guns so long as they follow the current federal NFA regulations.
SCOTUS decisions would have a lot more teeth if they started holding judges responsible by name for their incorrect decisions. If you violate rights as a judge, SCOTUS should state clearly in the decision that the judge has civil liability for that decision along with whatever lawyer was on the other side of the case.
True. Maybe a great constitutional amendment is the loser of a SCOTUS case is always responsible for the winner's costs AND can be sued civily.
Lokdog
NES Member
It just doesn't make sense that 4 Justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) wouldn't agree to Cert in both these cases. The only thing it could be is that they can't trust Robert's or Coney Barrett to make the right decision if the cases are granted Cert. The more I think about these cases the more mind-boggling the non-movement is
Per Curiam must be latin for royal ass chewing.
If you're feeling bad about SCOTUS, go back and read Alito's concurrence as a thorough smack down of Massachusetts laws, lawmakers, and judiciary to feel a little bit better.
-JR
pastera
NES Member
There is obviously some backroom bullshit going on.
Alito is not our friend when it comes to automatics. So there could be a bunch of dealing going on so if they take the case to make certain that all of the footnotes and hints of full auto bans get written into the holding.
Or they know that other cases are in the chain that they want to incorporate (Hawaii Aloha BS in the 9th)
pastera
NES Member
Caetano absolutely was a smack down.Per Curiam must be latin for royal ass chewing.
If you're feeling bad about SCOTUS, go back and read Alito's concurrence as a thorough smack down of Massachusetts laws, lawmakers, and judiciary to feel a little bit better.
-JR
But they watered it down a bit to get a unanimous opinion.
If Snope is actually taken up and an opinion forcing a 5:4 is written, that will make Caetano look like a love letter.
Dadstoys
NES Member
I don't think those pictures of Roberts at pedo island have gone anywhere.
Neither is Gorsuch or ACB if the oral arguments of Cargill v. Garland are any indication. In fact, Alito is more of our friend when it comes to automatics than either of those two. Just look at then-judge (now-Justice) Alito‘s dissent in US v. Rybar 1996 when he was a judge on the Third Circuit. He wanted to knock out the 1986 Hughes Amendment banning new civilian machine guns using commerce clause theories.
There's a lot of focus on MG's, but that's not what's at question with the Snope case unless as I said the ruling by the court could go beyond just simple state AWB's and into state NFA bans, which includes MG's.
The court is never going to touch the NFA unless there's a circuit split, everything in the NFA is still going to be applicable regarding tax stamps and Hughes after any ruling on Snope is made, but if Snope does throw out state restrictions on Assault Weapons and NFA items, that's going to be massive because it will go from the current status quo to people in Manhattan, Chicago, Boston, etc. from being banned from owning machine guns to legally owning them.
I think that's the hold up with the court as the court does not like machine guns because it is the third rail of the 2nd Amendment as the history of them instantly is associated with crime. IDK how the court can rule that AWB is unconstitutional and a state cannot restrict arms based on features without it also affecting NFA firearms. The only way the court could keep state bans on MG"s unaffected is to repeat over and over again that semi-automatics are in common use and any restrictions on them is unconstitutional, but say nothing about machine guns. It still would strike down state bans on SBR's, SBS, and maybe AOW's, but it keeps the machine guns out of the headlines.
Then again, the low information Democrat already has connotated Assault Weapons to be Machine Guns, so either way the court is going to be blamed for legalizing Machine Guns if they grant cert and overturn AWB.
The court is never going to touch the NFA unless there's a circuit split, everything in the NFA is still going to be applicable regarding tax stamps and Hughes after any ruling on Snope is made, but if Snope does throw out state restrictions on Assault Weapons and NFA items, that's going to be massive because it will go from the current status quo to people in Manhattan, Chicago, Boston, etc. from being banned from owning machine guns to legally owning them.
I think that's the hold up with the court as the court does not like machine guns because it is the third rail of the 2nd Amendment as the history of them instantly is associated with crime. IDK how the court can rule that AWB is unconstitutional and a state cannot restrict arms based on features without it also affecting NFA firearms. The only way the court could keep state bans on MG"s unaffected is to repeat over and over again that semi-automatics are in common use and any restrictions on them is unconstitutional, but say nothing about machine guns. It still would strike down state bans on SBR's, SBS, and maybe AOW's, but it keeps the machine guns out of the headlines.
Then again, the low information Democrat already has connotated Assault Weapons to be Machine Guns, so either way the court is going to be blamed for legalizing Machine Guns if they grant cert and overturn AWB.
MaverickNH
NES Member
A few years back, one could count the number of murders via “machine guns” in the US on one hand. With the advent of the “Glocks Switch”, the many unsolved homicides once attributed to “handguns” now get a 2nd look, based on the piles of 9mm cartridges found at crime scenes. Conflating Glock Switch shootings with “traditional” machine guns is what’s done the gun prohibitionists well. AR15s, Ghost Guns, Machine Guns - all in the same perceived pot now.
The same has happened with “ghost guns”. Criminals have obliterated serial numbers on their guns forever. Now guns with obliterated serial numbers are considered “ghost guns”. Since the term didn’t exist 10 years ago, they can make the data look like the use of ghost guns has exploded.
pastera
NES Member
To be truthful, the number of homemade firearms in criminal circulation has exploded over that same time frame with 80% frames and 3d printing.
From a constitutional standpoint, none of that matters since our rights are not predicated on the actions of criminals. However, the average person is ignorant of their rights or why protecting those rights is of utmost importance.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Good orders Monday morning!
The suspense is killing me...
The suspense is killing me...
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
