SCOTUS Declines Illegal Possession Of Silencers Case

This is more interesting when you look at the larger 2A SCOTUS landscape. It takes 4 votes to grant certiorari. 5 votes for a majority opinion.

Up until recently, we had two blocks of justices... Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (more or less) that would likely strike down gun control laws... Sotamayor, Kagan, Souter, and Ginsberg that would likely uphold gun control laws. That left Kennedy as the 5th vote, who we know now from statements from former justice Stevens pressured Scalia to incorperate the "longstanding restrictions" language in Heller.

During that time, the court has declined certiorari in 2A cases. Which made it seem like neither block of justices knew how Kennedy would vote after McDonald. Neither side wanted to move the ball in the wrong direction.

Out goes Kennedy, in comes Kavanaugh who, based on his dissents in previous cases, would fall into the block that would strike down gun control laws.

Now, the court has granted certiorari in NYSRPA v New York. To me, this signals that either one block or the other thinks they have 5 votes to reach a majority (hopefully to strike the law and expand the core of the right to include bearing arms), or the law is so egregious that both blocks are ready to strike it down like in Cetano (MA stun gun case). The Cetano opinion was an unsigned unanimous per curiam decision... they didn't even hear arguments it was so egregious. Considering the court is hearing arguments in NYSRPA, my money is on the conservative block looking to move the ball and strike the law. I think they are going to do it in a big way too, because of the following:

The court has had Rogers and Gould (NJ and MA carry cases) in conference with no relist or denial of certiorari.

The court has had Pena (CA handgun roster) in conference with no relist or denial of certiorari.

If the court wasn't going to decide broadly in NYSRPA, they would either grant or deny certiorari in those cases since they cover different aspects of gun controls (especially the handgun roster in Pena). Instead, the court has held those cases, presumably to remand back to lower courts based on the opinion in NYSRPA.

Denying certiorari in Kettler re-inforces that opinion for me. It would seem that the court is not ready to strike the NFA... but it's also not ready to risk striking the NFA as was the case with nearly all 2A cases appealed to SCOTUS while Kennedy was on the bench. At the same time, the fact that Kettler isn't being held like Rogers, Gould, and Pena reinforces my hypothesis that the court intends to cover enough ground in NYSRPA to guide those cases.

It will be interesting to see to whom Roberts assigns the responsibility of writing the majority opinion in NYSRPA. Since he is now the likely swing vote on so many issues, this will provide some clues about his thinking on 2A-related issues.

If he wants this case to "move the ball", he could assign it to one of the more conservative justices. If he wants to give expression to his strong preference for opinions with limited scope, he might retain this responsibility for himself. If we miss our mark and NYSRPA is upheld, then his choice to vote with the left block and his choice of the justice assigned to write the opinion becomes VERY important.

I love these statements from the Arizona AG regarding Rogers:


"Your constitutional rights don’t end when you walk outside your front door,” Brnovich said. “We have a guaranteed Bill of Rights in this country, not a bill of needs.”

Brnovich said similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional across the country and New Jersey’s should be as well.

The problem with New Jersey’s law is that they have essentially created a workaround ban for the issuance of handgun permits by adopting subjective 'justifiable need' requirements," Ryan Anderson, communications director for the attorney general, said.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/01/29/arizona-attorney-general-mark-brnovich-wants-supreme-court-address-new-jersey-gun-rights-case/2705844002/

The most galling thing to me in this and other cases of firearms related information being shaded by the news media. By that I mean calling, in this case, suppressors as silencers. The general population's only contact of any sort with suppressors is in movies and television where a firearm is reduced to "Pffft!". They don't understand that that is movie magic right up there with so many other fallacies people accept for the sake of the storyline. Problem is, with other fallacies and fudges that are made for the sake of stories people know that they are falsehoods and allow suspension of disbelief whereas in the case of silencers, they have no disbelief to suspend.
The only way to over come ignorance is education, however with guns and the built in prejudices there is resistance to actual information.

FlSwampRat said:

The most galling thing to me in this and other cases of firearms related information being shaded by the news media.
there is resistance to actual information.

Click to expand...

When you read or hear a news story about a subject you know nothing about done by a skilled presenter, you're going to be impressed by both the information and the insight. If you happen to have a little background in the subject, you're likely to be less impressed, which can reduce quickly to chagrin if you happen to be on the opposite side politically.

No news organization is going to waste too much time in mere presentation of information. The purpose is almost always political education. It's always been that way. It always will be.

It merely seems a bit more strident these days because, unlike say the late 60's when all of the major wire services aligned politically, people naturally turn harsher and a bit more radical when the opposition has any kind of voice whatsoever.

40-82 said:

When you read or hear a news story about a subject you know nothing about done by a skilled presenter, you're going to be impressed by both the information and the insight. If you happen to have a little background in the subject, you're likely to be less impressed, which can reduce quickly to chagrin if you happen to be on the opposite side politically.

No news organization is going to waste too much time in mere presentation of information. The purpose is almost always political education. It's always been that way. It always will be.

It merely seems a bit more strident these days because, unlike say the late 60's when all of the major wire services aligned politically, people naturally turn harsher and a bit more radical when the opposition has any kind of voice whatsoever.

Click to expand...

An article in the Sunday business section of the Dallas Morning News, courtesy of Bloomberg, talks about putting the steer in the field with the females (heifers) and having to wait to see what kind of offspring result.

Now, I'm guessing most of ya caught the problem with this statement.

Texas10mm said:

An article in the Sunday business section of the Dallas Morning News, courtesy of Bloomberg, talks about putting the steer in the field with the females (heifers) and having to wait to see what kind of offspring result. Now, I'm guessing most of ya caught the problem with this statement.

Click to expand...

I don't think he meant to steer anyone wrong here, perhaps he was just being the goat? I wouldn't geld the lilly and point out that it wouldn't much matter if they were longhorns or Jerseys.
I think I just ran out of puns.
The level of stupidity is astounding.

Texas10mm said:

An article in the Sunday business
section of the Dallas Morning News, courtesy of Bloomberg, talks about putting the steer in the field with the females (heifers) and having to wait to see what kind of offspring result.

Now, I'm guessing most of ya caught the problem with this statement.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm missing the problem. It is Bloomberg after all. Would anyone expect them to know of male creatures of any sort with balls? And the wait? Yes, there will be quite a wait, a long wait.