SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

[LiveLife]

Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) Continued from post #400 with summary of arguments - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12860340

En Banc (Entire bench) hearing is scheduled for 3/19/2024 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

9th Circuit oral arguments

23-55805 Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta

www.youtube.com

Adding to summary of arguments of post #400 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12860340

• At 23:30 minute of video, interesting question was posed to CA attorney that since semi-auto action is particularly more "dangerous" than lever action/bolt action/revolver action so how does five round difference between 10 round and 15 round magazines make the 15 round magazine "dangerous"? [and 10 round magazine not dangerous] And if that reasoning is correct, then all semi-auto firearm could be banned because semi-auto firearms are "dangerous" than other action firearms whether they are fed from detachable magazine or not.
• Then at 25:50 minute, CA attorney admits that "We cannot ban all semi-auto [magazine fed mechanism] weapons and Heller makes that clear"
• At 27:00 minute, while CA attorney mentioned there is long established tradition of firearm regulation and ban but keep in mind from District Court ruling from judge Benitez that CA lawyers were NOT ABLE to come up with historical tradition of "analogous" regulations that banned AW/magazine as illustrated by spreadsheet CA lawyers presented to judge Benitez (As post Bruen, now burden shifts to the state) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071
• At 34:00 minute, plaintiff attorney answers "commonly used ... for self defense use" question by stating "Heller speaks of use as possession" ... "unusual means not in common use". And at 37:30 minute, "Dangerous AND unusual ... has to be both ... as stated by Supreme Court".
• At 42:30 minute, plaintiff attorney explains "dangerous and unusual" as applied presently and historically
• At 42:50 minute, plaintiff attorney poses an interesting point that 11 round magazine must be banned by CA because it is simply larger than 10 round magazine therefore dangerous.
• At 52:30 minute, judge states CA has to provide evidence how and why larger than 10 round magazine fed semi-auto firearm is dangerous and unusual

 

[armoredman]

Dangerous ground, but interesting. Wish I could watch YouTube here.

 

[LiveLife]

but interesting

It sure is watching the entire argument.

What was clear from listening to judges is that even the 9th Circuit judges are keenly aware of Bruen mandate of "text, history and tradition" and some were clearly pointing out the Heller/Bruen mandates (Which even the CA attorney correctly agreed with) while others were carefully "dancing around" the Heller/Bruen mandates.

I think as one judge pointed out and as I posted in post #401, CA has the burden to provide historical tradition evidence analogous to larger than 10 round magazine ban (And there is none as pointed out by judge Benitez ruling) and CA has to clearly explain how and why 11 round magazine is dangerous and unusual when 10 round magazine is not - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12721871

"There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried."​

 

[DoubleMag]

Wow!

''and CA has to clearly explain how and why 11 round magazine is dangerous and unusual when 10 round magazine is not''

Perhaps an argument can be made that, that 11th round is the evil one, not the rounds 1 through 10; but they are included due to, the only way to get to the 11th? LoL

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12850126

This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024.​

Oral arguments for the 4th Circuit En Banc (Jump to 5:50 minute of video)

Oral Arguments (En Banc) - 9:00am Wednesday 3/20/2024

Audio livestream of oral arguments for the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.For more information on cases being argued, see the Oral Argument Calen...

www.youtube.com

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss today's hearing and as anticipated, I will take his word that it was "terrible".

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument today in Bianchi v. Brown about whether Maryland's "assault weapon" ban of semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment.​

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT JUST FINISHED HUGE 2A ARGUMENT OVER MARYLAND'S "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument today in Bianchi v. Brown about whether Maryland's "assault weapon" ban of semi-automati...

www.youtube.com

 

[JTHunter]

"There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried."

Didn't Lewis & Clark have an "airgun" that could fire something like 100 rounds on a single tank of air?

 

[LiveLife]

Didn't Lewis & Clark have an "airgun" that could fire something like 100 rounds on a single tank of air?

You mean Girandoni repeating air rifle that operated at 800 PSI and shot 40 rounds from same tank of air using 22 round tube magazine and penetrated one inch pine board at 100 yards accurately? https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/...girardoni-air-rifle-gun-helped-discover-west/

NRA National Firearms Museum: Lewis and Clark's secret weapon - a late 18th Century .46 cal. 20 shot repeating air rifle by Girandoni, as used in the Napoleonic Wars.

NFM Treasure Gun - Girandoni Air Rifle as Used by Lewis and Clark

http://nramuseum.com Lewis and Clark's secret weapon - a late 18th Century .46 cal. 20 shot repeating air rifle by Girandoni , as used bin the Napoleonic Wa...

www.youtube.com

 

[JTHunter]

You mean Girandoni repeating air rifle that operated at 800 PSI and shot 40 rounds from same tank of air and penetrated one inch pine board at 100 yards accurately?

NRA National Firearms Museum: Lewis and Clark's secret weapon - a late 18th Century .46 cal. 20 shot repeating air rifle by Girandoni, as used bin the Napoleonic Wars.

NFM Treasure Gun - Girandoni Air Rifle as Used by Lewis and Clark

http://nramuseum.com Lewis and Clark's secret weapon - a late 18th Century .46 cal. 20 shot repeating air rifle by Girandoni , as used bin the Napoleonic Wa...

www.youtube.com

Thanks ! I couldn't remember that weird name but I figured that somebody would know it.

 

[LiveLife]

I couldn't remember that weird name but I figured that somebody would know it.

Fast loading and shooting of replica at 3:50 minute of video

Girandoni Rifle 1

The air rifle, carried by Lewis and Clark during their Corps of Discovery expedition of 1803 is shown here in a demonstrationn of the Girandoni air rifle. T...

www.youtube.com

Disassembly video

Girandoni Air Gun (original 1780 example)

http://www.forgottenweapons.comThe Giradoni (also spelled Girardoni) air rifle was a very advanced design adopted in 1780 by the Austrian Army. While the sta...

www.youtube.com

And modern repeating air rifle capable of MOA (Jump to 6:55 minute)

These Air Rifles are as Powerful As A 22, Will it Replace Rimfire?

In today's video we look at emerging technology in powerful Air Rifles. In the future could these be more ubiquitous as the technology matures? Are the rifle...

www.youtube.com

 

[Mk-211]

Any news yet from today's hearing?

 

[LiveLife]

This case is scheduled for [En Banc] oral argument on March 20, 2024.

Any news yet from today's hearing?

Full Bianchi v Frosh 4th Circuit hearing video and Mark Smith review on post #405 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12860866

En Banc hearing is scheduled for 3/19/2024

Full Duncan v Bonta 9th Circuit hearing video and summary breakdown of hearing by Anthony Miranda from yesterday on posts #400 and #401 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12860510

 

[Basura Blanca]

It never ceases to amaze me how far the state will go to defend a lost cause.
In spite of the more absurd side of those oral arguments, these people aren't stupid. It must feel weird to have to throw basic reasoning to the wind to come up with some of this stuff. It's not much to assume they lack conviction.

 

[LiveLife]

It never ceases to amaze me how far the state will go to defend a lost cause.
In spite of the more absurd side of those oral arguments, these people aren't stupid. It must feel weird to have to throw basic reasoning to the wind to come up with some of this stuff. It's not much to assume they lack conviction.

I used to think that way also and wondered but then realized majority mob rule of "We should have greater voice because there are more of us than you" mindset post 1776 when larger coastal city states wanted to impose/overrule the wishes/rights of smaller rural states.

That's why we are a Constitutional Republic using Electoral College instead of Pure Democracy using Popular Vote ... So smaller rural states down to individuals in the minority have equal and protected voice.

This majority mob rule mentality was well expressed when First Amendment kept getting violated with many states passing unconstitutional laws until they kept getting sued to have cases appealed ultimately to the Supreme Court which kept ruling them unconstitutional. This crazy writing and passing of unconstitutional bills into laws by states stopped when permanent enforcement kicked in by the way of federal and state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

Since justice Thomas said the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", same must and will happen for the Second Amendment as states will keep writing and passing unconstitutional bills into laws only to be legally challenged up to the Supreme Court (Just as it happened for the First Amendment) until permanent enforcement kicks in the way of federal/state laws.

That's why the founders framed the government with separation of powers (Legislative and Executive with Judicial "judging" whether laws passed by two branches are constitutional) and the Supreme Court having the final say to rule Executive/Legislative to invoke permanent enforcement.

We are simply witnessing our government by "We the People" at work of self-governance.

And just as "We the People" righted the wrong by freeing the slaves and giving women right to vote then modernizing the Constitution/Bill of Rights by additional amendments; expanding the First Amendment protection to "modern forms of free speech" like email and text, so will "We the People" expand the Second Amendment protection to "modern types of arms" like magazine fed semi-auto firearms (Already done under Heller/Caetano) and adaptive devices like scopes, red dot sights, ambi-controls, pistol braces, etc. (Right handed/normal sighted/tall people have the same right to First Amendment protection as left handed/near sighted/short people )

I hope "We the People" will continue to self-govern as the founders intended.

Long live the Republic.

 

[LiveLife]

Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) Continued from post #401 with summary of arguments - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12860510

Lead counsel Anna Barvir for California Rifle & Pistol Association (CA arm of NRA) discuss arguments for 9th Circuit - https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/audio/?20240319/23-55805/

• 0:00 - Intro
• 1:15 - What kind of arguments are we seeing with Duncan v. Bonta
• 5:57 - what does the state have to benefit from changing definitions
• 8:35 - is this a path for them to ban all firearms
• 10:18 - Judges got confrontational with each other
• 12:07 - Why did they not talk about the magazine ban
• 15:21 - Where Does Duncan v. Bonta go from here

BREAKING 2A NEWS: HUGE ORAL ARGUMENT IN CA MAG CASE...

The US Court of Appeals for Ninth circuit en Banc heard argument today in Duncan v. Bonta re California's magazine ban. Mark Smith breaks it down...--------...

www.youtube.com

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner breaks down Duncan case arguments for 9th Circuit:

• 0:00 Big 2A News
• 1:21 Case Background & Details
• 3:15 CA & Pro-2A Opening Statements
• 6:01 Societal Change Argument
• 8:34 Burden Shifting to Government
• 11:48 Anti-Gunner Cheap Trick on "Common Use"
• 15:27 Machine Gun Issue & Caetano Test
• 21:37 2A Response to Machine Gun Issue
• 22:34 Why We DON'T Want Full En Banc Hearing
• 26:10 Thank You!

BREAKING 2A NEWS: HUGE ORAL ARGUMENT IN CA MAG CASE...

The US Court of Appeals for Ninth circuit en Banc heard argument today in Duncan v. Bonta re California's magazine ban. Mark Smith breaks it down...--------...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Nguyen v Bonta (CA 1-in-30 day pistol/rifle purchase ban) - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fede...ifornias-one-gun-a-month-firearm-purchase-law

Big FPC/SAF win based on Bruen "text, history ... tradition" mandate!

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the District Court for the Southern District of California has struck down the state’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period. The Opinion in Nguyen v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.​

​

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the [one-gun-a-month] law,” reads the Court’s Opinion. “The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the [one-gun-a-month] law under the Second Amendment.”​

​

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and counsel for FPC. “California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California resident’s right to acquire arms and has no basis in history. Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”​

​

The Court instructed the parties to file a proposed judgment in seven days, which will “include language that enforcement of the judgment is stayed for thirty (30) days to facilitate an appeal.”​

​

Plaintiffs in this case are six individual FPC members, PWGG, L.P., North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and the Second Amendment Foundation.​

 

[Tinman357]

I can't help but wonder what effect this will have on OR/WA.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Since this thread has become a catch-all for a lot of cases, I'll share this here:
For those who don't know Jim Miller (the Miller in Miller v. Bonta AW lawsuit) is a member of a local (to me in San Diego) school district. He's also a board member of SDCGO which is the genesis of a lot of these suits. That said, those two facts have never set well with the usual suspects and Miller has faced a ton of criticism from the anti-gun community here locally. Today, a SDCGO newsletter revealed that the local Republican party is choosing not to endorse Miller because, well... you can figure that part out.

Sorry. I don't have a direct link because this info came via email.

 

[LiveLife]

I can't help but wonder what effect this will have on OR/WA.

Not much as 4th/9th Circuit 2A rulings on AW/magazine ban will likely immediately be appealed to the US Supreme Court by the states or the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Oregon is covered by Harney County Circuit Court judge Raschio's ruling that Measure 114 was unconstitutional under Oregon Constitution and ruled with permanent injunction then denied two requests for stay by the state (And Oregon state Supreme Court denied twice state's request to intervene) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12847547

State of Oregon has filed with the court of appeal but until the appeal is heard and ruled on, judge Raschio's final ruling stands.

 

[LiveLife]

"This is unlikely to be the end of this case," said Dean Rieck, Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association. "Columbus will almost certainly appeal yet again. They won't give up until this case goes all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which by the way has already ruled on two separate occasions that cities cannot pass their own gun laws in Ohio.

Update to Doe v Columbus (Columbus, OH magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12774629

NOTE: This is Ohio state court case

Ohio Supreme Court to hear Columbus gun restrictions case - https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-supreme-court-hear-columbus-gun-restrictions-case

• Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear two parts of a lawsuit regarding city of Columbus' unlawful gun regulations passed in 2022
• Columbus City passed two ordinances — one banning magazines with more than 30 rounds and one requiring that firearms be stored in such a way that keeps children from accidentally gaining access to them
• Columbus City asked the high court in January to review the case after a lawsuit filed in Delaware County challenged the city's ordinances, which are in violation of Ohio's preemption law (ORC 9.68)
• The Buckeye Institute filed a request in Delaware County for a temporary injunction after a Fairfield County judge ruled that the city could move forward with its ordinances
• Delaware County Judge David M. Gormley granted the injunction request in April 2023 and rebuked the city for overstepping its authority
• Columbus appealed the decision and had been enforcing their restrictions against the residents of Columbus
• The Buckeye Institute asked for the appeal to be dismissed and for the preliminary injunction to be reinstated. On Nov. 30, Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals did just that.
• Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy accepted the case. The court will decide whether the city's ordinances should remain blocked while the lawsuit challenging their legality continues.

Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director Dean Rieck said the high court settled the matter in 2010 in Cleveland v. State, adding that he has every reason to believe justices will eventually again rule that Ohio's preemption laws are indeed constitutional, rendering Columbus' ordinances null and void.​

​

"Columbus has gone from being wrong on the law to just being ridiculous," said Rieck. "The Ohio Supreme Court has already ruled on preemption, which is the law that says cities can't pass their own gun control laws. Period.​

​

"The only reason I can imagine Columbus continues to pursue this issue is the hope that the court will flip Democrat in November and they may get a different ruling on preemption. That's not likely."​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (Now Kotek) (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-16#post-12798152

NOTE: This is Oregon state court case

Great news for Oregonians!

After Harney county circuit court judge Robert Raschio issued a final ruling that Measure 114 is unconstitutional "in its entirety" under Oregon constitution, state of Oregon appealed to state court of appeals but the Oregon court of appeals declined to stay judge Raschio's ruling and agreed to expedite the case.

Oregon Court of Appeals declined the state’s motion to allow Measure 114 to go into effect while it appeals a Harney County judge’s ruling that found the voter-approved gun control measure unconstitutional - https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/20...eals-court-keeps-gun-control-law-on-hold.html

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The court concludes that, taken together with the other considerations set forth above, this factor does not support a stay.​

​

Although the court acknowledges that the measure itself is intended to address an issue of great importance to the public, the motion does not present a sufficient basis to conclude that there is a nonspeculative likelihood of harm that will occur during the pendency of the appeal in the absence of a stay.​

​

The court concludes that, under the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the state’s request (also supported by amici) to expedite the case.​

​

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss the ruling

BREAKING!!! Magazine Ban Permanently Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional! Appeals Court Agrees!

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Oregon measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥Instag...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12860915
Ex FPC attorney now with CRPA Anthony Miranda discuss Bianchi update:

• After Bruen ruling, case was GVR'd back down to 4th Circuit to reconsider with "text, history and tradition" mandate dating to 1791
• After 4th Circuit 3 judge panel hearing, it was decided the En Banc panel will take the case from the 3 judge panel and nothing happened for 13 months.
• With threat of Supreme Court intervening if GVR'd cases moved through the judicial process too slowly post Bruen "text, history and tradition" mandate with burden shifting to the states, En Banc hearing was held in March but was a disaster as the judges clearly expressed they weren't interested in following Supreme Court's instructions post Bruen.
• Instead of waiting for the 4th Circuit to rule while sitting on the case longer, Second Amendment Foundation filed a petition for a writ of "certiorari before judgement" which is a type of petition which invokes the Suprme Court's statutory power to grant review of a case before lower court reach any judgements.
• This is a process to bypass lower courts for the Supreme Court to rule on merits
• But Maryland's response brief argued Bruen ruling does not change the outcome of the Bianchi case and it's too premature for the Supreme Court to intervene
• Maryland further argued under Heller ruling, they can outright ban all semi-auto rifles
• Maryland continued to argue no historical analysis was necessary and ban didn't need to be justified

< WOW ... Maryland is just flaunting to force the Supreme Court to take the case by openly defying Bruen ruling and mandates ... WOW! >

• One by one, like the 9th Circuit, different Circuit courts are delaying GVR'd and remanded cases and simply sitting on them. After going on 2 years now, Maryland is openly defying clear mandate from Bruen ruling < Of "text, history and tradition" with consideration for analogous regulations with burden shifting to the states ... Because they can't find any historical evidence of such analogous regulations as well documented in Miller/Duncan cases for judge Benitez ... And believe me, if there were, CA attorneys would have found them >
• How Supreme Court handles this request will definitely be interesting for all other 2A cases where lower courts are defying/delaying Bruen mandate

Supreme Court Emergency Decision To Block All "Assault Weapon" Bans Nationwide Put In Motion!!!

In this video I break down an important development in a critical lawsuit attempting to have the Supreme Court eliminate state rifle bans!BlackoutCoffee: htt...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #421 regarding Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12880344

Because they can't find any historical evidence of such analogous regulations as well documented in Duncan/Miller cases for judge Benitez ... And believe me, if there were, CA attorneys would have found them

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR

IMO, I think various federal courts hostile to 2A will continue to simply delay and defy Supreme Court's Bruen mandate of applying "text, history and tradition" in looking for analogous regulations BECAUSE they cannot find them.

And in delaying all the various 2A cases, the anti's hope is that enough time will pass to replace the current 6/3 or more specifically 5/4 bench makeup to 4/5 before Supreme Court gets to make 2A rulings.

In Miller/Duncan cases, at federal district court level, judge Benitez gave CA attorneys AMPLE and additional time to come up with "best historical evidence" of firearm and magazine regulations but they could not find any "analogous regulation" specific to firearm/magazine capacity restriction for both cases. So now the judicial narrative has shifted (I guess antis attend the same luncheons/parties) to focusing on banning "military" weapons as NFA/GCA did LIMIT some "full-auto" and "short barrel rifles" ... But they were not BANNED completely.

However, Bruen requires "historical analogous evidence" to the time of Bill of Rights ratification with burden shifting to the states and judge Benitez considered regulations prior to 1791 to comply with Bruen mandate.

This is what CA attorneys presented to judge Benitez as "best historical evidence" of firearms and magazine ban which actually supports and makes argument for judge Benitez that there is no analogous historical tradition of AW/magazine ban - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071

So the spreadsheet actually supports judge Benitez's rulings that there is no historical tradition for AW/magazine ban and forthcoming unconstitutional rulings for both cases after post Bruen reconsideration may set a precedent for other AW/magazine ban cases. https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...re-Defendants-Survey-of-Relevant-Statutes.pdf​

• Items #1 through #4 applied to British subjects
• Item #5 is prohibition of arms possessed by slave made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
• Items #6 and #8 are ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
• Items #7 and #9 are English laws that allowed "Protestants" to have arms for defense with no objection from the plaintiffs
• Item #10 is irrelevant as it prohibits unintended/unattended discharge of firearm for trapping animal, not for self defense of human
• Item #11 is ban to prevent fire/explosion in one city, not the state and insufficient to consider for "historical tradition"
• Item #12 is ban of very large quantity of gunpowder (black powder which is "explosive" and not smokeless powder which "burns") to prevent fire/explosion and irrelevant to AW/magazine ban
• Items #13, #14, #19, #20, #23 is ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
• Items after #14 are beyond 1791 when Bill of Rights was ratified by which judge Benitez will consider for the case ruling
• Items #15-#18, #21, #22 are prohibition of carry of arms by "negro or mulatto" made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
• Items #24 through #190 are more of carry ban, possession/transfer/manufacture ban for negro or mulatto and regulation of gunpowder to prevent fire/explosion
• Items after #191 are beyond 1888 stipulated by judge Benitez as 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment

I do believe the antis and attorneys for the antis KNOW there is no historical analogous tradition of firearm/magazine ban so now they must resort to something else to justify the ban and why we are seeing the crazy notions being tossed about in open defiance of Bruen ruling and mandates.

Time to make more popcorn.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12880375

Second Amendment Foundation filed a petition for a writ of "certiorari before judgement" which is a type of petition which invokes the Suprme Court's statutory power to grant review of a case before lower court reach any judgments ... Maryland's response brief ... argued under Heller ruling, they can outright ban all semi-auto rifles
Maryland continued to argue no historical analysis was necessary and ban didn't need to be justified

< WOW ... Maryland is just flaunting to force the Supreme Court to take the case by openly defying Bruen ruling and mandates ... WOW! >

Supreme Court conference scheduled for 5/16/24 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-863.html

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) along with 6 other AW/magazine ban cases pertaining to PICA (NAGR v Naperville, Harrel v Raoul, Barnett v Raoul, GOA v Raoul, Herrera v Raoul, Langley v Kelly) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12889987

Ex FPC attorney now with CRPA Anthony Miranda discuss AW/magazine ban cases now seeking Supreme Court review:

• Bianchi case is now waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court appealing from 4th Circuit decision (5/16/24 conference)
• Various PICA cases are being ruled by lower courts in violation of Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings some using military service argument
• 7th Circuit reversed preliminary injunction issued by lower court for Barnett case making argument for military service
• When the PICA cases were appealed to the 7th Circuit, decision was made to deny the appeals and cases are seeking interlocutory review by the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court previously declined to intervene for NAGR v Naperville and Caulkins v Pritzker interlocutory review request but now argument is being made that the Supreme Court grant interlocutory review of these AW/magazine ban cases because various states are defying Heller/Caetano/Bruen rulings and government cannot ban arms in common use under Heller
• Because of these reasons, Bianchi and various PICA cases are ripe for Supreme Court review especially because lower courts are incorrectly applying Heller test 16 years after the ruling and it is time for Supreme Court to step in
• On 5/16/24, Supreme Court will conference these seven cases and decide whether to grant cert to these cases (Only requires four justices)
• Decision should be made about a week after the conference whether the Supreme Court will grant cert

Supreme Court 6-3 Decision & Remand Order Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever! States Defy!

In this video I break down a critical Supreme Court decisions on rifle and magazine ban cases that will impact the nation!🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media ...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Bianchi v Frosh, now Brown (MD AW ban) along with 6 other AW/magazine ban cases pertaining to PICA (NAGR v Naperville, Harrel v Raoul, Barnett v Raoul, GOA v Raoul, Herrera v Raoul, Langley v Kelly) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12892117

On 5/16/24, Supreme Court will conference these seven cases and decide whether to grant cert to these cases (Only requires four justices)

2A Attorney Has All Fingers Crossed While SCOTUS Considers Taking a Gun Ban Case - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...otus-considers-taking-a-gun-ban-case-n1224937

• Supreme Court conference today reviewing various "assault weapon" bans in Illinois and Maryland to be considered for acceptance
• Closed-door conference is not open for the public and decisions will be made on Monday
• California Rifle & Pistol Association (CA arm of NRA) president, and co-founder of the Second Amendment Law Center Chuck Michel explains options available to the Court ... at least four justices are ready and willing to take up the issue of bans on commonly-owned firearms (Requires 4 justices to grant cert)
• Supreme Court may decline to hear these cases on procedural reasons as all of them have yet to be decided on the merits in the courts of appeals
• Justices may want to allow lawsuits to go through lower courts ... past two years we've already seen the Supreme Court reject emergency appeals of the Illinois gun ban case as well as New York's Bruen response bill
• There's a distinct possibility that at least six justices will conclude it's still premature to accept the cases
• Michell - But there's a good argument to make in favor of granting cert now, rather than letting the lawsuits drag out in the lower courts.

"I know that Justices Thomas and Alito are fed up. The lower courts are basically thumbing their nose at them again, just like they did after Heller, but back then we had Justice Kennedy on the Court. The conventional wisdom is that he didn't want to take another Second Amendment case... so we didn't get any of these cases that we asked the Court to take between Heller and Bruen. We didn't get any of them accepted for twelve years.​

​

But now we have six, even though one or two might be a little squishy, in favor of the Second Amendment and also, I think, tired of the lower courts basically thumbing their nose at the Bruen ruling. I think they also know that the other side is playing the long game. The other side is hoping that Biden wins and one or more of the older justices will have to retire, and Biden will get to put another justice in there and change the vote around. I think they're probably inclined to do something sooner rather than later so they can set the record straight."​

• Michel - There's also a "wild card"; the Rahimi case. Supreme Court is expected to rule next month, and justices could end up using that case as a vehicle to flesh out the "text, history, and tradition" test it laid out in Bruen to keep the gun ban cases in conference until after Rahimi has been decided, and then grant cert, vacate the lower court decisions, and remand the Illinois and Maryland lawsuits back to the courts of appeal for further review in light of Rahimi's findings
• If Rahimi makes it clear that the lower courts aren't abiding by that test, it would still kick the gun ban can down the road for at least another few months, and likely a year or more.
• Hope is that the Supreme Court's opinion in Rahimi will explore whether or not entire classes of people can be subject to a prohibition on ownership or if there needs to be an individual determination of "dangerousness" before they're excluded from the Second Amendment's protections, but that it won't be such a broad decision that it would impact the gun ban cases that were discussed in conference today.
• Supreme Court has hung on to several prohibited person cases pending the Rahimi decision, including challenges to the lifetime ban on gun ownership for someone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison (Garland v. Range) and whether "unlawful" drug use disqualifies someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights (U.S. v. Daniels), but the questions posed by those cases are far different than the ones presented in the challenges to the gun bans in Illinois and Maryland. The prohibited person cases all deal with who is protected by the Second Amendment, but the gun ban lawsuits revolve around what is protected by the Second Amendment's language.
• Gun owners shouldn't freak out if none of the gun ban challenges show up in Monday's orders. Even if the justices do decide to grant cert to one or more of the lawsuits, it might take more than one conference to reach that decision. Heller, for instance, went through three conferences before cert was granted, and my recollection is that Bruen went through at least two conferences before the justices decided to hear the case.
• The Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans in states that have banned commonly owned semi-automatic firearms are at stake, and delaying acceptance (or worse, rejecting the cert petitions outright) will allow these infringements to continue for the foreseeable future.