Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

[sbhaven]

View: https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1883912327210361163

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar
@fourboxesdiner
BREAKING 2A SCOTUS: No order today in Snope (AR ban) or Ocean State (mag ban). This confirms they won't be heard this 2024-25 term. Best case: 2A must cheer that SCOTUS grants cert for cases to be heard in fall 2025. Worse case: cert is denied and someone issues dissent therefrom

 

[pastera]

And aren’t those decisions generally considered unanimous? Doubt we’d see that.

Yes, but they don't have to be unanimous. There was a recent order with a per curiam with dissent.

Caetano was unanimous simply because Mass SJC'S position that she could have applied for a firearms permit and shot her child's father was considered idiotic by even the most liberal members of the court

 

[Thumopolis]

Welp, it was a nice dream. Time to pray for good news next year.

 

[Sparky1911]

I guess the constitution is basically toilet paper now. Seems about right for these times. Speech is next. Then what?

 

[pewpewpew]

This is so disappointing. I have been quietly reading and learning in this thread, and like everyone else am disappointed and baffled at how it seems like these two cases are just being ignored and swept under the rug.

 

[JoseyWales]

Well, I think the blue angels or thunderbirds are coming to NH in September, something to think about instead...

 

[Nightshift]

I guess the constitution is basically toilet paper now. Seems about right for these times. Speech is next. Then what?

The historical next step

 

[pastera]

This is so disappointing. I have been quietly reading and learning in this thread, and like everyone else am disappointed and baffled at how it seems like these two cases are just being ignored and swept under the rug.

There are four cases out of Illinois and a couple in the 9th circuit in the final stages.
The question is if this weirdness is because they want one of those cases or they want those cases to move forward unaffected by cert (those circuits will stall the cases the instant Cert is granted)

 

[HorizontalHunter]

There are four cases out of Illinois and a couple in the 9th circuit in the final stages.
The question is if this weirdness is because they want one of those cases or they want those cases to move forward unaffected by cert (those circuits will stall the cases the instant Cert is granted)

Hopefully it is something like that.

I wonder if SOCOTUS is aware that Mass has pushed past the AWB and moved on to an ASWB (Assault Style Weapons Ban)?

 

[sbhaven]

I wonder if SOCOTUS is aware that Mass has pushed past the AWB and moved on to an ASWB (Assault Style Weapons Ban)?

And there is a proposed bill out of CO, SB 25-003, that goes beyond that by basically banning all semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazines, and gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with a detachable magazines. One would think that the justices have to know, or at least their clerks, that their inaction to deal with assault weapon bans and magazine bans just emboldens and green lights the ban states to ban even more guns in direct violation of Heller and Bruen. Its not like these bans and proposed bans are hidden in a back room and don't affect over 100 million people every single day.

Maybe they really are waiting for a few more state level ban cases to reach completion in circuit court of appeals before moving on addressing all of them. Otherwise what they're doing makes absolutely no logical sense in light of their Bruen opinion.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

And there is a proposed bill out of CO, SB 25-003, that goes beyond that by basically banning all semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazines, and gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with a detachable magazines. One would think that the justices have to know, or at least their clerks, that their inaction to deal with assault weapon bans and magazine bans just emboldens and green lights the ban states to ban even more guns in direct violation of Heller and Bruen. Its not like these bans and proposed bans are hidden in a back room and don't affect tens of millions of people every single day.

Maybe they really are waiting for a few more state level ban cases to reach completion in circuit court of appeals before moving on addressing all of them. Otherwise what they're doing makes absolutely no logical sense.

The reason I wonder is that Justice Ketanji Jackson is in charge the 1st circuit and we all know where she stands.

 

[sbhaven]

The reason I wonder is that Justice Ketanji Jackson is in charge the 1st circuit and we all know where she stands.

She is but one judge in charge of but one circuit. There are something like 10 states including D.C. with some form of AWB spread out across the country encompassing multiple circuit courts covered by several justices. Roughly 1/3 of the citizens in this country live under some form of AWB and LCM ban.

 

[MickeyD’s]

She is but one judge in charge of but one circuit. There are something like 10 states including D.C. with some form of AWB spread out across the country encompassing multiple circuit courts covered by several justices. Roughly 1/3 of the citizens in this country live under some form of AWB and LCM ban.

What do all those circuits have in common?

Liberal and anti majority…we are never going to get a circuit split.

 

[sbhaven]

What do all those circuits have in common?

Liberal and anti majority…we are never going to get a circuit split.

Exactomundo. With pretty much only blue states doing gun bans we are not going to see any kind of a circuit court split. We'd need a gun ban in the 5th, 6th, 8th or 11th circuit courts. Don't see that happening any time soon.

Circuit Assignments - Supreme Court of the United States

Circuit Assignments
For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
For the First Circuit - Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)
For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)
For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice
(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.
Circuit Assignments

 

[Coyote33]

There are four cases out of Illinois and a couple in the 9th circuit in the final stages.
The question is if this weirdness is because they want one of those cases or they want those cases to move forward unaffected by cert (those circuits will stall the cases the instant Cert is granted)

Maybe they are reading up on those right now, and will come out with something to address ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. We can only hope.

 

[Davidk]

We have not been able to trust the SC to do right since Obamination Care

 

[PappyM3]

We have not been able to trust the SC to do right since Obamination Care Miller

Or ever

 

[pastera]

Hopefully it is something like that.

I wonder if SOCOTUS is aware that Mass has pushed past the AWB and moved on to an ASWB (Assault Style Weapons Ban)?

The descriptive words are immaterial, the effects are the same - banning arms in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[pastera]

And there is a proposed bill out of CO, SB 25-003, that goes beyond that by basically banning all semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazines, and gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with a detachable magazines. One would think that the justices have to know, or at least their clerks, that their inaction to deal with assault weapon bans and magazine bans just emboldens and green lights the ban states to ban even more guns in direct violation of Heller and Bruen. Its not like these bans and proposed bans are hidden in a back room and don't affect over 100 million people every single day.

Maybe they really are waiting for a few more state level ban cases to reach completion in circuit court of appeals before moving on addressing all of them. Otherwise what they're doing makes absolutely no logical sense in light of their Bruen opinion.

This was partly my thoughts - SCOTUS may want to combine a specific case or cases in order to draw in a large number of Amici on both sides allowing them to absorb all of the end-around arguments to any opinion they issue.

But I'm in full on dreaming (nightmare) coping mode about this right now - SCOTUS is not acting rationally. This shit didn't even happen with abortion cases that were objectively much more politically controversial

 

[HorizontalHunter]

This was partly my thoughts - SCOTUS may want to combine a specific case or cases in order to draw in a large number of Amici on both sides allowing them to absorb all of the end-around arguments to any opinion they issue.

But I'm in full on dreaming (nightmare) coping mode about this right now - SCOTUS is not acting rationally. This shit didn't even happen with abortion cases that were objectively much more politically controversial

Something is off for sure. It really makes you wonder what they are up to.

 

[pastera]

Maybe they are reading up on those right now, and will come out with something to address ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. We can only hope.

They cannot - they are tied to the facts in evidence of the case before them and existing case law.
Which is why they call for amici for many cases.

 

[VTski4x4]

They added a Misc order late last night - maybe a Per Curium is coming? Who the f*** knows at this point. All I know is this is bullshit.

 

[Picton]

They added a Misc order late last night - maybe a Per Curium is coming? Who the f*** knows at this point. All I know is this is bullshit.

They leak when they shouldn't, but when you really really want a leak... they keep their mouths shut.

 

[pastera]

They added a Misc order late last night - maybe a Per Curium is coming? Who the f*** knows at this point. All I know is this is bullshit.

Zero intuition on this but I don't think we are going to get a per curium from Snope or Ocean State.
It could be that they know they need to take an assault weapons ban case but want to stay away from Snope because of the internal bullshit making the court(s) look bad.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

It could be that they know they need to take an assault weapons ban case but want to stay away from Snope because of the internal bullshit making the court(s) look bad.

Isn't someone going to look bad either way?
If they don't take the case then SCOTUS looks like the 4th Circuit's bitch, and if they do take it then the 4th Circuit looks like the bitch (been slapped).

 

[Lokdog]

We can't even chalk it up to "Oh, it's not the same Cpurt that took Bianchi" but it is!! It is the exact same Court (maybe Brown wasn't there yet but her and Breyer are exactly the same) which makes the headache of why they won't take Snopes unbearable

 

[Cap'n Mike]

I had not heard this before about Ceatano.

View: https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1883921634102501702?s=61


SCOTUS hasn’t denied Cert in Snope, I take that as good news.

 

[Lokdog]

I had not heard this before about Ceatano.

View: https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1883921634102501702?s=61


SCOTUS hasn’t denied Cert in Snope, I take that as good news.

I absolutely agree but it seems strange that Roberts's, who cares so much about Court optics, would let the Court look so weak and impotent. That's why hopefully there is something in the works where this will be addressed sooner rather than later but the delays allow the Court to look just bad, really bad

 

[pastera]

Isn't someone going to look bad either way?
If they don't take the case then SCOTUS looks like the 4th Circuit's bitch, and if they do take it then the 4th Circuit looks like the bitch (been slapped).

SCOTUS doesn't want to hang out its dirty laundry - outside determined 2A advocates and law geeks very few people have any knowledge of what the 4th did.

And the 4th's en banc is a mind twisting cluster Fck
They give us this:

Thus, the Court acknowledged that it was not in serious dispute that “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned.” Id. at 627.

Followed closely by

And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, a per curiam Court reaffirmed two aspects of Heller: that “the Second Amendment extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding”; and that the Second Amendment may protect arms beyond “weapons useful in warfare.” 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016)

In the first quote they clearly state that military arms are not protected but then follow it up with the acknowledgement that 2A protects arms beyond "weapons useful in warfare" which pretty much by definition are those "weapons most useful in military service" - which is it? are arms useful in war protected or not?

The majority opinion is simply back written to explain a predetermined outcome and that is immediately apparent.

 

[sbhaven]

Thus, the Court acknowledged that it was not in serious dispute that “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned.” Id. at 627.

The 4th of course leaves out the whole context of that statement from Heller that appears to say something entirely different than what the 4th is inferring it does. From page 58-59 of Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.