Now that Kavanaugh is confirmed as a SCOTUS justice what 2nd Amendment cases could come up next?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
The US Supreme Court has not taken any 2nd Amendment cases in nearly 10 years (maybe more) and that has been because SCOTUS hasn't granted cert in any 2nd Amendment case basically making the 2nd Amendment a 2nd class right.

With Brett Kavanaugh on SCOTUS and Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorusch already on the bench and believing that SCOTUS should take 2nd Amendment cases it could have enough justices to grant cert to a 2nd Amendment case. I believe it takes 5 justices to grant cert.


What 2nd Amendment cases are currently ready to be pushed to SCOTUS?
 
Aim1 said:
The US Supreme Court has not taken any 2nd Amendment cases in nearly 10 years (maybe more) and that has been because SCOTUS hasn't granted cert in any 2nd Amendment case basically making the 2nd Amendment a 2nd class right.

With Brett Kavanaugh on SCOTUS and Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorusch already on the bench and believing that SCOTUS should take 2nd Amendment cases it could have enough justices to grant cert to a 2nd Amendment case. I believe it takes 5 justices to grant cert.


What 2nd Amendment cases are currently ready to be pushed to SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) was an important case that incorporated the Second Amendment against the States.

I'm sure there are more to follow which will support the Second Amendment. We'll just have to see.
 
Balrog said:
The big ticket item for me would be NFA being overturned. Not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
I'd settle for "moderators" being allowed to be purchased OTC like they are in England, Australia and New Zealand. among a host of other countries with strict gun laws.
 
Answer: Arbitrary and capricious issuance / denial of CCW permits in commie states (e.g. Calif. and NY)

Also, legislatively, take silencers out of NFA - let each state decide.
 
You can look at a lot of opinions and track records but a new justice on the court is a new justice on the court. This one seems... SEEMS... friendly to the constitution in its entirety. I can see things being more favorable to all of the enumerated rights, but I just don’t see (at this point) there being any significant rollbacks of anything that can be construed as settled law. Maybe if RBG vacates her seat...maybe.

All that said, I absolutely expect to see a new version of Hearing Protection Act come up, and that may force a review of NFA laws, which may be nice. Constitutional carry would be nice if it were forced down, but truthfully it would be best for the nation if those things not settled by federal law were left up to the states to decide for themselves...as was intended. The only other thing that I think should be looked at is the closure of the machine gun registry. There is no reason a person can’t own that which he can afford provided he has not precluded himself from eligibility due to convictions of crimes or some other avenue by which a person would legally disqualify.

There are bigger fish to fry than 2A issues though. Blatant disregard of federal law in other arenas...I digress.
 
WestKentucky said:
You can look at a lot of opinions and track records but a new justice on the court is a new justice on the court. This one seems... SEEMS... friendly to the constitution in its entirety. I can see things being more favorable to all of the enumerated rights, but I just don’t see (at this point) there being any significant rollbacks of anything that can be construed as settled law. Maybe if RBG vacates her seat...maybe.

All that said, I absolutely expect to see a new version of Hearing Protection Act come up, and that may force a review of NFA laws, which may be nice. Constitutional carry would be nice if it were forced down, but truthfully it would be best for the nation if those things not settled by federal law were left up to the states to decide for themselves...as was intended. The only other thing that I think should be looked at is the closure of the machine gun registry. There is no reason a person can’t own that which he can afford provided he has not precluded himself from eligibility due to convictions of crimes or some other avenue by which a person would legally disqualify.

There are bigger fish to fry than 2A issues though. Blatant disregard of federal law in other arenas...I digress.
Click to expand...


Isn’t the hearing protection act a law that hasn’t been passed yet, something that wouldn’t be in the purview is SCOTUS?


I think the two most pressing cases are carry outside the home and bans on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
 
Having 4 votes isn't any better than having 3 or 2. You have to get to 5. Roberts remains something of an unknown on this.

I also think that Kavanaugh and the other pro-2nd justices are especially attuned to the public perception that they are now a political body like the other 2 branches of government, and may want to go slow over the next couple of years in issuing decisions that are unpopular. Unfortunately, I think a decision that declares AWB's to be unconstitutional, while correct, would be unpopular with a citizenry that has been told, almost daily, that "assault weapons" are why we have school shootings. My guess is that they may continue to stay wary of these cases for at least a term or two.
 
not the job of the court to make law, is the job of the court to make sure laws and actions of law are not afoul of the constitution. Recent history has been very confused on that which makes it more confusing. The Obama era was chocked full of executive order agreed to by a more liberal SC which allowed it to happen.

Now back on topic... Certain opinions and rulings have left room for erosion of or strengthening of the rights. People cry about how the opinions aee sometimes vague, but that can go both ways. Example... ruling verbiage indicates that it is legal to make certain weapons illegal. By the same token that leaves room to exempt certain weapons because now we are not talking “guns” we are talking about certain kinds of guns or certain features. So if a muzzle device (sold separate) is intended to minimize noise then it’s an NFA weapon, but by the way things were written you can expound on it to the thought that a gun may be engineered in such manner that if it is originally sold in configuration that keeps it quieter than normal then that may be ok. In that example things like integrally suppressed guns may be ok. Same thought process as “high capacity magazines” can be made illegal can specifically exempt other things.
 
Though not legislative, if a conviction for a no stamp silencer came up, an appeal could theoretically make it's way to the Supreme Court and possibly have a positive effect.

No interest in being the test case.
 
I don't know if we can expect them on the docket in the next year but challenges to the (IMO) insane laws in NY, CT, NJ, CA and possibly soon, Washington State would be excellent. I'm not a lawyer of in the legal field, but those States are depriving their Citizens of their Constitutional Rights and likely restricting firearms that are in "common use".

Jeff B.
 
What the Supreme Court will do, or not do, going forward, is completely unknowable at this point. Once seated, Justices have a way of defying their pre-appointment expectations. There is always a bias on the Court in favor of stability, and not rocking the boat. Therefore I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.
 
AlexanderA said:
What the Supreme Court will do, or not do, going forward, is completely unknowable at this point. Once seated, Justices have a way of defying their pre-appointment expectations. There is always a bias on the Court in favor of stability, and not rocking the boat. Therefore I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.
Click to expand...


Justice Kavanaugh has ruled on the 2nd Amendment in the past:


https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17820310/brett-kavanaugh-second-amendment-guns-supreme-court

From the article:


In 2011, Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case in which he argued that the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. “A ban on a class of arms is not an ‘incidental’ regulation,” he wrote. “It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.” No other court has agreed with Kavanaugh on this front, and other appeals courts have upheld reasonable limits on gun ownership.

On the historical and traditional grounds, Kavanaugh argued that the ban on semiautomatic rifles and handgun registration requirements are unconstitutional. He reasoned that semiautomatic rifles “have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses.” Similarly, he claimed that the “[r]egistration of all lawfully possessed guns — as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers — has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual.”
 
Aim1 said:
In 2011, Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case in which he argued that the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. “A ban on a class of arms is not an ‘incidental’ regulation,” he wrote. “It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.”
Click to expand...
Yet in his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh said that he was OK with a ban on machine guns. Those are certainly a "class of arms" and they would be "in common use" were it not for the restrictive legislation of 1934 and 1986. I would therefore take Kavanaugh's 2nd Amendment record with a grain of salt. Being on the Supreme Court bench has a certain dynamic all its own.
 
I'm seeing two big cases.

The first will take bans of types of firearms (i.e. Evil Black Rifles) and accoutrements off the table. The second will address "might issue if we feel like it" laws in some barbarian States.

NFA? Watch the legal actions around a bump stock ban. That, and a 4th Amendment case on transfer times. Those are a ticking time bomb for ATF, and I think they know it but don't have the legal cover to fix it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Do we have any 2nd Amendment cases waiting for SCOTUS cert?
Replies
2
Views
356
CapnMac
CapnMac
A
  • Locked
Shouldn't Pro-2nd Amendment groups hold off on petitioning SCOTUS until it's more favorable?
Replies
4
Views
639
AlexanderA
A
A
  • Locked
Any potential 2nd Amendment cases that could be granted cert by SCOTUS this fall?
Replies
8
Views
722
denton
D
A
  • Locked
With today's SCOTUS NY gun case being mooted is this a bad time to bring a 2nd Amendment case?
Replies
3
Views
456
boom boom
boom boom
U
  • Locked
Will the makeup of SCOTUS change before the next 2nd Amendment Case?
Replies
2
Views
353
hso
hso
Back
Top