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

[pastera]

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:

The words were there and in that order. You're racist and a misogynist for requiring a consistent context to be retained.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

I had not heard this before about Ceatano.

I very much doubt that, since a 4-4 decision would have had the opposite effect of upholding Massachusetts. Instead, the SJC ruling was so far off base it made for a slam dunk. Even the anti-gun justices realized it directly contradicted Heller and McDonald. Oddly, no one addressed the point that Caetano was carrying the stun gun outside of the home, and as a result the case almost accidentally extended the literal holding of Heller.

 

[Picton]

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

They only look that way to us.

The overwhelming majority of the people in this country have no idea what Snopes is, still less that it's being hung up in conference. That's if they even know what "grant cert" means.

For the rest? Court-watchers who understand all that? Many are liberal, probably antis, and they probably see this as Roberts And The Women standing strong against the Gun Nuts.

 

[1sern]

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

Followed closely by


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.

Traditionally speaking, 19th century bans and court opinions were against cheaper weapons considered not useful in war such as knives and small concealable handguns and against concealed carry while military weapons, too big to conceal, were protected. Even up to the time of Miller, the gov't had to argue a SBS wasn't militarily useful.

 

[pastera]

I very much doubt that, since a 4-4 decision would have had the opposite effect of upholding Massachusetts. Instead, the SJC ruling was so far off base it made for a slam dunk. Even the anti-gun justices realized it directly contradicted Heller and McDonald. Oddly, no one addressed the point that Caetano was carrying the stun gun outside of the home, and as a result the case almost accidentally extended the literal holding of Heller.

If one reads Caetano, you see how insane SCOTUS felt the State's pleadings and the SJC's opinion actually was.
Where they erred is by vacating and remanding back to the SJC - they should have outright declared the Mass ban on stun guns unconstitutional and wiped the law completely off the table.
We now deal with them as firearms as a result.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

If one reads Caetano, you see how insane SCOTUS felt the State's pleadings and the SJC's opinion actually was.
Where they erred is by vacating and remanding back to the SJC - they should have outright declared the Mass ban on stun guns unconstitutional and wiped the law completely off the table.
We now deal with them as firearms as a result.

Had Ceatano been a Nationwide SCOTUS ruling, it would have solved a lot of problems for everyone.

 

[AMV]

One of the issues that has always concerned me, the longer the court waits to decide this stuff the more blue states pass bans on certain types of weapons, therefore making the usage of those weapon "less common" May be a flawed way to look at it but take text, history and tradition and common usage and ask how it can be applied to machine guns now.

I am 100% confident the court will do right by striking down AWB and MAG bans, I'm beginning to question when, or how, but I am sure there is a plan, or the cases would already have been denied. A game of chess, and all we can do is speculate what is inside the head of the court.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Had Ceatano been a Nationwide SCOTUS ruling, it would have solved a lot of problems for everyone.

Caetano does hold nationwide, but if you wanted it to set specific limits on the "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" I can see where you are disappointed.

 

[pastera]

Had Ceatano been a Nationwide SCOTUS ruling, it would have solved a lot of problems for everyone.

Caetano does have nationwide scope - per curiam is still an opinion of the Supreme Court.

 

[Lokdog]

They only look that way to us.

The overwhelming majority of the people in this country have no idea what Snopes is, still less that it's being hung up in conference. That's if they even know what "grant cert" means.

For the rest? Court-watchers who understand all that? Many are liberal, probably antis, and they probably see this as Roberts And The Women standing strong against the Gun Nuts.

The problem with that though is they already took the case once. If they had never GVR'ed Bianchi then I get it. But taking it once and then having the lower court blatantly disobey you and then not rectifying it? That looks weak to anyone paying attention

 

[Picton]

The problem with that though is they already took the case once. If they had never GVR'ed Bianchi then I get it. But taking it once and then having the lower court blatantly disobey you and then not rectifying it? That looks weak to anyone paying attention

I agree. But then you and I (and everyone else in this thread) are in the know.

I still think 99,999 out of every 100,000 Americans aren't "paying attention" to this case, and have no clue about the issues involved (neither the issues at law in the case, nor the way SCOTUS operates). Neither does the MSM. They'll report it generically as an "expansion of gun rights" or they won't report it at all, and the masses won't ever know anything about it.

If Roberts is pandering to people... it ain't that many people.

 

[Lokdog]

Roberts's obviously just cares about the court looking "apolitical" and unfortunately his idea of apolitical includes shirking his duty to the Constitution and falls for the left's BS. I wonder if the Court had 6 left leaning Justices and a left leaning Chief Justice if they would care about the same thing? We all know the answer to that which makes Roberts an even bigger cuck and loser

 

[WJ406]

I agree. But then you and I (and everyone else in this thread) are in the know.

I still think 99,999 out of every 100,000 Americans aren't "paying attention" to this case, and have no clue about the issues involved (neither the issues at law in the case, nor the way SCOTUS operates). Neither does the MSM. They'll report it generically as an "expansion of gun rights" or they won't report it at all, and the masses won't ever know anything about it.

If Roberts is pandering to people... it ain't that many people.

Forget the average American. The average gun owner has no idea about these cases before SCOTUS. I still run into gun owners in Mass who have no idea about Ch. 135

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Caetano does have nationwide scope - per curiam is still an opinion of the Supreme Court.

Caetano does hold nationwide, but if you wanted it to set specific limits on the "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" I can see where you are disappointed.

Caetano certainly didn’t have the immediate nationwide effect on stun guns that Bruen did on Bearing Arms.

RI and Hawaii still had blanket prohibitions on stun guns 7 years after Caetano.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Probably will not be redistributed for conference till Feb 14th for the February 21st Conference.


View: https://x.com/moroskostas/status/1884349638356132224?s=61

 

[drgrant]

Maybe it is time to write the justices just like we would a politician.

I can't imagine any of the problem ones would actually listen the only guy I can envision actually reading mail sent to them would be with somebody like Clarence Thomas who we likely already agree with. They're not voted on by constituents so they're not accountable to you.

 

[Tartakovsky]

Roberts's obviously just cares about the court looking "apolitical" and unfortunately his idea of apolitical includes shirking his duty to the Constitution and falls for the left's BS. I wonder if the Court had 6 left leaning Justices and a left leaning Chief Justice if they would care about the same thing? We all know the answer to that which makes Roberts an even bigger cuck and loser

@Lokdog - are you susceptible to bribery? I’ll bribe you to change your avatar picture so I don’t have to see Joy Behar’s stupid f***ing face on here anymore. And no, you can’t just change it to Whoopie or Rosie (or any cast member of The View for that matter).

 

[Lokdog]

@Lokdog - are you susceptible to bribery? I’ll bribe you to change your avatar picture so I don’t have to see Joy Behar’s stupid f***ing face on here anymore. And no, you can’t just change it to Whoopie or Rosie (or any cast member of The View for that matter).

I was gonna put either Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees but was like wait a minute, I know what's far more horrible than them

 

[Coyote33]

One of the issues that has always concerned me, the longer the court waits to decide this stuff the more blue states pass bans on certain types of weapons, therefore making the usage of those weapon "less common" May be a flawed way to look at it but take text, history and tradition and common usage and ask how it can be applied to machine guns now.

I am 100% confident the court will do right by striking down AWB and MAG bans, I'm beginning to question when, or how, but I am sure there is a plan, or the cases would already have been denied. A game of chess, and all we can do is speculate what is inside the head of the court.

This is what I was saying above.

Roberts's obviously just cares about the court looking "apolitical" and unfortunately his idea of apolitical includes shirking his duty to the Constitution and falls for the left's BS. I wonder if the Court had 6 left leaning Justices and a left leaning Chief Justice if they would care about the same thing? We all know the answer to that which makes Roberts an even bigger cuck and loser

I thought people said Roberts is on our side. Which is it?

 

[HARRYM]

This is what I was saying above.


I thought people said Roberts is on our side. Which is it?

When Roberts stated that there are no Trump Judges or Obama Judges he clearly exposed his "why can't we all get along" philosophy. From that point forward he became a box of chocolates.

 

[sbhaven]

A Miscellaneous Order was released yesterday for two other cases (not Snope or Ocean State Tactical).

 

[Joeldiaz]

I thought people said Roberts is on our side. Which is it?

Chieft Justice Roberts is a reliable 6th vote. He cannot be counted upon to be the swing vote, he’s too wishy washy.

 

[HARRYM]

How would we all be feeling right now if this current court was revisiting Heller....

Of course I do make this statement as a charter member of the NES Pants Shitting Club.......

 

[pastera]

Caetano certainly didn’t have the immediate nationwide effect on stun guns that Bruen did on Bearing Arms.

RI and Hawaii still had blanket prohibitions on stun guns 7 years after Caetano.

Read Caetano and look up how many times it has been cited.

As far as RI and Hawaii - those states would need to be sued using Caetano and Bruen.
Caetano DID NOT FIND stun gun bans to be unconstitutional. It found the three explanations of why stuns guns were not protected where facially contrary to Heller's holdings

Caetano cemented that modern arms of all types are part of the 2nd's protection within Heller's framework and Bruen removed tiers of scrutiny and reinforces Heller's historical textual framework.

 

[Lokdog]

Read Caetano and look up how many times it has been cited.

As far as RI and Hawaii - those states would need to be sued using Caetano and Bruen.
Caetano DID NOT FIND stun gun bans to be unconstitutional. It found the three explanations of why stuns guns were not protected where facially contrary to Heller's holdings

Caetano cemented that modern arms of all types are part of the 2nd's protection within Heller's framework and Bruen removed tiers of scrutiny and reinforces Heller's historical textual framework.

I don't want to out the store but I bought my wife a stun gun for Christmas here in RI so there are stores not afraid to sell them.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

As far as RI and Hawaii - those states would need to be sued using Caetano and Bruen.
Caetano DID NOT FIND stun gun bans to be unconstitutional. It found the three explanations of why stuns guns were not protected where facially contrary to Heller's holdings

Rhode Island was sued, and a Federal Judge ruled their ban unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against enforcement was issued in 2022. I can't find any record of an appeal, and a bill to treat stun guns like handguns for purposes of permitting and carrying appears to have died in committee.

Hawaii legalized stun guns starting in 2022, but requires mandatory training.

While Caetano did not find stun gun bans to be unconstitutional, after the Supreme Court ruling the SJC remanded it back to a trial court, where the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the charges rather than fight a constitutional challenge. That challenge came in Ramirez v. Commonwealth, and the SJC rule "We conclude that the absolute prohibition against civilian possession of stun guns under § 131J is in violation of the Second Amendment" and declared it facially invalid. The legislature then acted to include stun guns under a LTC.

 

[pastera]

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/spr-jud-crt-mas-suf/1928320.html

SJC'S ramirez if anyone cares to read it.
A good exercise is to read Ramirez then Canjura to see how the intervening Bruen opinion effects the tenor of the SJC'S opinion in Canjura

 

[drgrant]

@Lokdog - are you susceptible to bribery? I’ll bribe you to change your avatar picture so I don’t have to see Joy Behar’s stupid f***ing face on here anymore. And no, you can’t just change it to Whoopie or Rosie (or any cast member of The View for that matter).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIGwYN99JLk

 

[HorizontalHunter]

@Lokdog - are you susceptible to bribery? I’ll bribe you to change your avatar picture so I don’t have to see Joy Behar’s stupid f***ing face on here anymore. And no, you can’t just change it to Whoopie or Rosie (or any cast member of The View for that matter).

I would try Ammo……lots of Ammo.

 

[GL2020]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIGwYN99JLk

Not too far from the truth. It's brutal