Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown waiting on Cert grant from SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

[pastera]

Just more evidence for the obvious, interlocutory appeals to SCOTUS are useless. Focus on losing on the merits in the inferior courts as quickly as possible so you can get to SCOTUS on a final judgement.

The problem with absolute refusal of interlocutory appeals is that it allows lower courts to slow walk cases and persecute people unchecked for many years.
Granting cert in an interlocutory case should happen often enough to keep lower courts honest and afraid

 

[lutstribe]

They repealed zero tolerance. Now the ghost gun ban next.

 

[firestorm]

Duncan is ready for review
OST is not.

However since in many assault weapon definition magazine capacity is a factor, SCOTUS only needs Snope to speak directly to magazine capacity.
And they can add clear dicta that accoutrements, ammo and accessories are no different than parts of an arm.

Snope is the "clean" AWB case, has nothing to do with mag bans. Duncan v Bonta is the mag ban case. But I think you are right and the thing they are waiting for is Duncan v Bonta as a final judgement mag ban so they can roll the two together since many of the AWB's are both a gun ban and a mag ban. They have been very leery of non final cases lately and I figure Ocean state can be either denied because it is not ready or held until the other two are decided and then GVR'd under the new standard.

 

[JoseyWales]

So, after the 9th (?) ruled on Duncan V Bonta that magazines are an accessory and not always needed , then (as we speak) the good folks at FPC are preparing the paperwork asking SCOTUS to take up the case?

 

[Cap'n Mike]

So, after the 9th (?) ruled on Duncan V Bonta that magazines are an accessory and not always needed , then (as we speak) the good folks at FPC are preparing the paperwork asking SCOTUS to take up the case?

The 9th issued the ruling on Duncan v Bonta on 3/20.
I assume an appeal to SCOTUS can’t be put together in a bit less than 3 weeks

 

[pastera]

Snope is the "clean" AWB case, has nothing to do with mag bans. Duncan v Bonta is the mag ban case. But I think you are right and the thing they are waiting for is Duncan v Bonta as a final judgement mag ban so they can roll the two together since many of the AWB's are both a gun ban and a mag ban. They have been very leery of non final cases lately and I figure Ocean state can be either denied because it is not ready or held until the other two are decided and then GVR'd under the new standard.

I know Snope is an AWB.
That was clear in my post.
SCOTUS can easily wordsmith a holding striking down AWBs to clearly affect capacity limits also. Whether they choose to do and why they haven't is a mystery at this point.

As far as waiting for Duncan, we should pray that is the case because the alternative is Gorsuch and Roberts are playing games.

 

[sbhaven]

William Kirk (Washington Gun Law) opines on today's orders.


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

The orders list is out again from SCOTUS and still no word on the Snope or Ocean State case. But is there more to digest from today's order list? Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses what can be derived from today's list and some other huge developments that have occurred today related to your Second Amendment Rights. So learn more today and arm yourself with education.


Tom Grieve opines on the Antonyuk cert denial.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoQdPBhDXX4

BREAKING: 2a DISASTER Here?! SUPREME COURT Denies 2a Case! Antonyuk v. James New York

 

[pastera]

So, after the 9th (?) ruled on Duncan V Bonta that magazines are an accessory and not always needed , then (as we speak) the good folks at FPC are preparing the paperwork asking SCOTUS to take up the case?

Just as a magazine is an accessory, a folding stock or flash hider are accessories.

Duncan and Snope are the same case arguing a question answered in Caetano - remember she had a stun gun but they used a Tazer as an example. SCOTUS made it clear that the more effective, more user friendly weapon is fully protected.

 

[AMV]

This is starting be more of a therapy group thread, rehashing the same thing every Monday.

If we need to wait for the last possible moment for cert this session in order to get the best possible cases granted, so be it. Do you think the court wants to rehash this every year, or make one sweeping decision….. and put most of it to bed for at least a few years

 

[MickeyD’s]

This is starting be more of a therapy group thread, rehashing the same thing every Monday.

If we need to wait for the last possible moment for cert this session in order to get the best possible cases granted, so be it. Do you think the court wants to rehash this every year, or make one sweeping decision….. and put most of it to bed for at least a few years

Must be new to following 2A cases

This is how it has always gone, there will never be a sweeping decision. Well I take that back when there is a firm liberal court there will be quick and broad sweeping cases.

It will never be “put to bed”

 

[Coyote33]

I assume an appeal to SCOTUS can’t be put together in a bit less than 3 weeks

And even then, once "put together"< it then has to be discussed once submitted, another 3 weeks?

SCOTUS can easily wordsmith a holding striking down AWBs to clearly affect capacity limits also. Whether they choose to do and why they haven't is a mystery at this point.

Probably "internal disagreement" at SCOTUS on how to proceed with this.

As far as waiting for Duncan, we should pray that is the case because the alternative is Gorsuch and Roberts are playing games.

They have 2 of the "AWB" cases, and 2 of the "mag limit" cases. They have probably a couple other thing either affecting these or affected by these. They are probably just getting all their ducks in order. It is almost a book keeping game at this point, there are so many moving parts. Let's hope they get it RIGHT right.


By the way, on what day did the Roe v Wade overturn news come out on? Was it a Monday or Friday? For some reason, I thought it was "off schedule" or midweek or something.

 

[Picton]

By the way, on what day did the Roe v Wade overturn news come out on? Was it a Monday or Friday? For some reason, I thought it was "off schedule" or midweek or something.

It was a leak, which happened on a Monday IIRC. I don't remember when the actual decision came out, partly because everyone already knew what it was. Because it was leaked.

 

[KBCraig]

They repealed zero tolerance. Now the ghost gun ban next.

The ATF zero tolerance was policy, not law. It wasn't repealed, just replaced with a new directive. The ghost gun ban was at least codified by the formal rule making process.

Also, don't forget: you're relying on the administration that still thinks Patrick "Tate" Admaniak should stay locked up for 20 years for NOT selling or possessing anything illegal.

 

[Khackz]

8. Reptile selling one of those Noveske lowers @ $3000

9. Erock selling any single one of the stockpiled aw rifles

 

[AMV]

Must be new to following 2A cases

This is how it has always gone, there will never be a sweeping decision. Well I take that back when there is a firm liberal court there will be quick and broad sweeping cases.

It will never be “put to bed”

We are in unprecedented times….. haven’t you been paying attention?

 

[pastera]

Probably "internal disagreement" at SCOTUS on how to proceed with this.

10 relists is not an "internal disagreement" - something that involves our leather cheerio and a cactus seems to be occurring.

They have 2 of the "AWB" cases, and 2 of the "mag limit" cases. They have probably a couple other thing either affecting these or affected by these. They are probably just getting all their ducks in order. It is almost a book keeping game at this point, there are so many moving parts. Let's hope they get it RIGHT right.

Which cases are you referring to?
Forget anything in an interlocutory state.

I have a feeling that Roberts, Gorsuch and Alito don't want to touch an AWB case, especially one based on the AR, due to the impact it may have on a future attack on the NFA.
I'm on my phone or I would write a dissertation on the path but suffice to say that previous opinions have been very clear that they don't want to touch anything that has any chance of going near machineguns

 

[1903Collector]

I have a feeling that Roberts, Gorsuch and Alito don't want to touch an AWB case, especially one based on the AR, due to the impact it may have on a future attack on the NFA.

If that's true then it's basically game over, this is all for nothing?

 

[pastera]

If that's true then it's basically game over, this is all for nothing?

They didn't want to take Dobbs but they eventually did.

 

[Joeldiaz]

10 relists is not an "internal disagreement" - something that involves our leather cheerio and a cactus seems to be occurring.

Which cases are you referring to?
Forget anything in an interlocutory state.

I have a feeling that Roberts, Gorsuch and Alito don't want to touch an AWB case, especially one based on the AR, due to the impact it may have on a future attack on the NFA.
I'm on my phone or I would write a dissertation on the path but suffice to say that previous opinions have been very clear that they don't want to touch anything that has any chance of going near machineguns

I agree with you on Roberts and Gorsuch, but not Alito. Alito’s dissent in US v. Rybar when he was still just Judge Alito and not Justice Alito would indicate to me that he’s more open that the rest of SCOTUS to attacks on the NFA, or at the very least the Hughes amendment.

 

[pastera]

I agree with you on Roberts and Gorsuch, but not Alito. Alito’s dissent in US v. Rybar when he was still just Judge Alito and not Justice Alito would indicate to me that he’s more open that the rest of SCOTUS to attacks on the NFA, or at the very least the Hughes amendment.

His concurrence in Cargill and his dissent in Rybar do not counteract the NFA, quite the contrary. He stipulates that congress has the power to regulate machineguns.
In Rybar he postulates that "the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the commerce clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element". He is not opposed to the restriction, the dissent is the manner used to justify jurisdiction for the restrictions.
In Cargill, he concurs that because of the statutory language the ATF cannot redefine a machinegun but Congress can do so and therefore ban bumpstocks. Alito speaks about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting saying"That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bumpstock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for ammending 5845(b)" "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law"

Alito is clearly for closing any legal argument against the NFA's treatment of machineguns.

 

[Mesatchornug]

His concurrence in Cargill and his dissent in Rybar do not counteract the NFA, quite the contrary. He stipulates that congress has the power to regulate machineguns.
In Rybar he postulates that "the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the commerce clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element". He is not opposed to the restriction, the dissent is the manner used to justify jurisdiction for the restrictions.
In Cargill, he concurs that because of the statutory language the ATF cannot redefine a machinegun but Congress can do so and therefore ban bumpstocks. Alito speaks about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting saying"That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bumpstock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for ammending 5845(b)" "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law"

Alito is clearly for closing any legal argument against the NFA's treatment of machineguns.

I hear you, but one could also read that as simply telling Congress to do their own dirty work. Fitting of the season, something about washing hands comes to mind.

 

[pastera]

I hear you, but one could also read that as simply telling Congress to do their own dirty work. Fitting of the season, something about washing hands comes to mind.

In Rybar I agree but him calling out Las Vegas makes me very weary of trusting him on NFA matters.
However, if congress hasn't touched the definition of machineguns so far, I doubt they will do so and risk a compromise erasing the Hughes amendment.

Adding FRTs and bumpstocks to the NFA but opening the registry would still be a win.

 

[Lokdog]

I'm sure it's very easy to seperate out semi-auto sears from selective fire sears when it comes to writing an opinion. Those justices will make sure of that so I can't understand how it would be complex to protect AR's and still keep NFA firearms seperate. AR's in semi-auto configuration are common use, M4's and M16's with selective fire sears are not (even though they should be)

 

[sbhaven]

Re Duncan v. Bonta...


View: https://x.com/CRPAPresident/status/1909686582090907751

Chuck Michel

We have just filed a motion to stay the mandate in Duncan v. Bonta. Without getting too into the weeds, the basic goal here is to protect "freedom week" and grandfathered magazines while we seek cert from the Supreme Court. Since 2019, magazines possessed before the complete ban law and a result from freedom week have been shielded from enforcement of the general ban by an order from Judge Benitez. Mandate issuing would ultimately reverse that order, and it would no longer be legal to possess such magazines. Thousands of law-abiding Californians would be turned into criminals.

The State did not oppose this motion, so we expect and hope it will be granted. Then, our fate relies on the Supreme Court doing the right thing and reversing the en banc majority's erroneous ruling.

 

[sbhaven]

If that's true then it's basically game over, this is all for nothing?

No it isn't game over. Assuming they grant cert for Snope and are in mind to strike down the AWB. They can write a very, very, narrow opinion striking down AWB's as they relate to semiautomatic firearms while sprinkling language throughout the opinion saying this has nothing to do with NFA. Remember the question presented by Snope is the following:

"Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America."

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Re Duncan v. Bonta...


View: https://x.com/CRPAPresident/status/1909686582090907751

Chuck Michel

We have just filed a motion to stay the mandate in Duncan v. Bonta. Without getting too into the weeds, the basic goal here is to protect "freedom week" and grandfathered magazines while we seek cert from the Supreme Court. Since 2019, magazines possessed before the complete ban law and a result from freedom week have been shielded from enforcement of the general ban by an order from Judge Benitez. Mandate issuing would ultimately reverse that order, and it would no longer be legal to possess such magazines. Thousands of law-abiding Californians would be turned into criminals.

The State did not oppose this motion, so we expect and hope it will be granted. Then, our fate relies on the Supreme Court doing the right thing and reversing the en banc majority's erroneous ruling.

I wonder if this has been holding up CRPA appealing Duncan V Bonta to SCOTUS?

 

[sbhaven]

Strangely (as of this post) neither Snope nor Ocean State Tactical appear to have been listed as "distributed" to the next conference day (Thursday, April 17th). Typically in the past they were distributed to the next conference day, typically towards the end of Monday following the orders list that were release earlier in the day.

 

[pastera]

I'm sure it's very easy to seperate out semi-auto sears from selective fire sears when it comes to writing an opinion. Those justices will make sure of that so I can't understand how it would be complex to protect AR's and still keep NFA firearms seperate. AR's in semi-auto configuration are common use, M4's and M16's with selective fire sears are not (even though they should be)

Question in the Snope petition:

Whether the Constitution permits the State of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.

The only parts that will be part of the issue are those that are defined as enumerated ban features.

If the court cements the Bruen methodology and further explores the history of longstanding, widespread arms bans based on lethality of an arm and its involvement in violent crime, they will find essentially nothing banning the possession of such weapons. The closest analogous laws would be the banning of carry of bowie and similar knives but not possession. This would necessarily be the basis of the historical review since the state's argument allowing the ban is that the enumerated features make the firearms too dangerous for the 2nd's protections.

Once the history of bans is explored, then we can show that 1934 is not within the Heller/Bruen timeframe for founding era analogous laws and that the 2nd is not limited to arms that fall below an arbitrary level of lethality set by the government.

Further, but for the NFA and the follow on Hughes amendment, machineguns would have proliferated into popular items similar to silencers today. This fact would be easily shown to be true with even casual polling of the gun owning public.

The government in many cases and, particularly, in Snope has argued both for and against Miller's finding that to be protected a firearm had to possess military utility even though Heller clearly shows that neither position holds - arms in common use are protected regardless of usefulness or uselessness with regard to the military.

But one would argue that machineguns fail the "in common use" test - they do, but only because the government impermissibly restricted access to them. Further, the fact that 175K of them are in circulation mostly from a time where a person had to pay a tax equivalent to a week's income or more on top of the cost of the arm in itself proves that machineguns are wildly popular and only uncommon because of government infringement.

Any case would need to be carefully curated in the proper venue to ensure an en banc circuit win since a grant of cert would be highly unlikely unless the government is the petitioner.

 

[pastera]

Strangely (as of this post) neither Snope nor Ocean State Tactical appear to have been listed as "distributed" to the next conference day (Thursday, April 17th). Typically in the past they were distributed to the next conference day, typically towards the end of Monday following the orders list that were release earlier in the day.

Next conference is on the 17th, a Thursday with the closest Friday conference occurring on the 25th

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2024TermCourtCalendar.pdf

 

[xtry51]

When the court decided Bruen, they should have struck down at minimum all federal guns laws on that day. Bruen cannot support GCA34 or 68.

Roberts will never allow this because he's not a real judge. He's a fence sitting politician who decides cases based on the popular opinion is at the time. In this respect people like Sotomayor are better judges because at least they consistently interpret law based on a fixed reasoning (whether it's logical or not).