SCOTUS Justice Barrett has requested a resp to a lawsuit challenging Illinois AWB & Magazine ban

[Aim1]

Does this mean this case will be expedited to SCOTUS?





https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status/1653116948253646848?t=ehnPMoRewIFTWd6DxwSgaQ&s=19

 

[Aim1]

Someone said that Sotomayor did this in Antonyuk and then the full SCOTUS court denied emergency relief.

 

[CapnMac]

No. But, it does point out that this case is not in a vacuum.

 

[Aim1]

No. But, it does point out that this case is not in a vacuum.

What does that mean?

 

[natman]

Someone said that Sotomayor did this in Antonyuk and then the full SCOTUS court denied emergency relief.

That's true. SCOTUS doesn't like to get involved in cases that are not yet settled at the lower court level. They rejected a similar request in the NY Antonyuk case on procedural grounds, without commenting on the merits of the case. I would expect that they will do the same with this request.

 

[GEM]

And that means the game will be played for a long time. In NY, Scotus (Alito and Thomas) just said we will be watching you to move on this expeditiously - which in legal time means loooong times.

Scotus has yet to act. They have the power but prefer to fool around in the legal weeds despite the continuing denial of basic rights. I suppose that makes sense to them.

Alito gets driven around in a tank with body guards and worries about assassination but feels no impulse to quickly establish RKBA rights for the poor schmuck regular citizen going about his or her business. So what about precedent or scolding the lower courts. Bah.

 

[Capybara]

Things are definitely getting interesting with SCOTUS overall and gun rights. I'm sure that the Justices are getting pissed
that the Bruen ruling is basically being ignored by such a large number of states. Hopefully they will be moved to act on
gun rights more and more before we lose the Conservative majority in the court.

 

[LiveLife]

I'm sure that the Justices are getting pissed that the Bruen ruling is basically being ignored by such a large number of states

Actually, I believe justices anticipated the response ... like how responses were to 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment.

There was resistance by some states until permanent enforcement came from federal and state laws.

And as justice Thomas stated in Bruen ruling, the 2nd Amendment is not a "second class right" ... So the permanent enforcement will be forth coming ... But like for 1st/14th Amendments, there will be kicking and screaming by some states ... until then.

Hail the brave "Originalist" justices upholding the framing of the founders ... Long live the Republic.

 

[Spats McGee]

Things are definitely getting interesting with SCOTUS overall and gun rights. I'm sure that the Justices are getting pissed
that the Bruen ruling is basically being ignored by such a large number of states. Hopefully they will be moved to act on
gun rights more and more before we lose the Conservative majority in the court.

Bruen isn't being ignored. It infuriated CA, NY, NJ, etc., and they responded to it.

 

[Monac]

Could I ask why this is thread in the General Gun Discussions subforum instead of the Legal subforum? If that forum is not meant for exactly this kind of thread, what is it meant for? Why bother to have it?

 

[Spats McGee]

Could I ask why this is thread in the General Gun Discussions subforum instead of the Legal subforum? If that forum is not meant for exactly this kind of thread, what is it meant for? Why bother to have it?

Some threads, like this one, could be suitable for both Legal and GD. There's a certain amount of (totally worthwhile) chit-chat that goes on around gun law & decisions that we try to keep out of Legal. Legal is for a closer analysis of statutes and rulings.

 

[GEM]

The justices getting pissed isn't worth a warm bucket of .... , as Harry Truman said of the vice presidency, IIRC. Unless they act, the states' counterattack on Bruen will be seen as successful. Everyone says - oh, wait, Clarence is getting his dander up, blah, blah. Yet to do something.

 

[CapnMac]

What does that mean?

The various "levels" of the court system tend to operate within their own spheres, upon their own level as it were.

That's while knowing that the case they are deciding might be--especially when ruling upon legislation--brought to Appeal from a higher court.

So, the note from Barrett is likely a reminder that similar cases were recently sent back to their District courts under instruction to decide them based on Bruen et al.
Or it's a "We, too are interested in how your case goes."

Now, whether that's meant to be a threat or an encouragement winds up in deeper political debate.

 

[GEM]

The practical bottom line is not to expect the states' antigun laws to be voided in the immediate future. The vagueness of Bruen (not to the true believers) voids a clear application of the 2nd Amendment for relief.

If a case gets presented to them, there seems to be a debate if they could act. If they can but send it back down, then what practical good are they?

 

[LiveLife]

The practical bottom line is not to expect the states' antigun laws to be voided in the immediate future.

Yes, that's how the founders framed the government.

So law makers and governors will pass bills and sign them into laws BUT the judges, ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide whether the laws are constitutional or not.

The same happened for First Amendment and states kept passing anti-1A laws until permanent enforcement happened in the form of federal/state laws - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...te-2a-in-light-of-bruen.916923/#post-12575577

I do not expect anything different for 2A receiving permanent enforcement.

 

[Monac]

Some threads, like this one, could be suitable for both Legal and GD. There's a certain amount of (totally worthwhile) chit-chat that goes on around gun law & decisions that we try to keep out of Legal. Legal is for a closer analysis of statutes and rulings.

Thank you. I did not know that the definition of "Posts must be related to firearms...." could be stretched that far. I kind of wish if couldn't, but majority rule, I guess.

 

[Aim1]

The various "levels" of the court system tend to operate within their own spheres, upon their own level as it were.

That's while knowing that the case they are deciding might be--especially when ruling upon legislation--brought to Appeal from a higher court.

So, the note from Barrett is likely a reminder that similar cases were recently sent back to their District courts under instruction to decide them based on Bruen et al.
Or it's a "We, too are interested in how your case goes."

Now, whether that's meant to be a threat or an encouragement winds up in deeper political debate.

Ah. Interesting. Thanks.

 

[LiveLife]

Could I ask why this is thread in the General Gun Discussions subforum instead of the Legal subforum?

There's a certain amount of (totally worthwhile) chit-chat that goes on around gun law & decisions that we try to keep out of Legal. Legal is for a closer analysis of statutes and rulings.

I found over the years that my best efforts at understanding various "legal terms/notions" came from "layperson" perspective, not from a "lawyer" perspective.

So of course, my approach to the Legal subforum was "improper" and "opinionated" when the Legal subforum required more precise "legal" approach.

Attorney/lawyer mods kindly pointed this out and after several years of head banging (Believe me, they were very patient with me), I finally got it. Now I post on legal only when I have a very good "legal" grasp of the discussion. When I don't, I pursue the "layperson" discussion on General and start a new thread if there isn't a thread started on the topic.

So if you are frustrate at the slow progress of cases and seemingly confused by how/why judges/justices rule certain manner, stay on General with me and together we can vent/rant until somethings make sense.

My wife of 28 years often tells me, "Honey, it's OK to be confused ... Just listen to me as I know I am right." And she is often absolutely correct.

 

[codytrucker]

Today I asked my senators , and representative to introduce legislation to transfer the US Marshalls office to the Judicial branch of government . I feel there needs to be an enforcement , investigative agency not under the control of the DOJ , so that each branch can be held accountable , as was intended . By having an enforcement arm of their own the courts can curb politicians and bureaucrats from outright defying court rulings ,and hold other agency's accountable to follow the law . whether or not it goes anywhere , i don't know . but it should put a little more tooth into court rulings .

 

[lilguy]

Today I asked my senators , and representative to introduce legislation to transfer the US Marshalls office to the Judicial branch of government . I feel there needs to be an enforcement , investigative agency not under the control of the DOJ , so that each branch can be held accountable , as was intended . By having an enforcement arm of their own the courts can curb politicians and bureaucrats from outright defying court rulings ,and hold other agency's accountable to follow the law . whether or not it goes anywhere , i don't know . but it should put a little more tooth into court rulings .

Good luck with this one. Asking congress to give the courts armed enforcement officers is bold. Please share any response you receive.

 

[codytrucker]

Good luck with this one. Asking congress to give the courts armed enforcement officers is bold. Please share any response you receive.

I am not sitting around holding my breath , that's for sure . Our Wyoming representatives are pretty good at at least giving us a response ,so we'll see . Worth a chance .

 

[GEM]

When the composition of the court changes and major social issues flip yet again, the armed might of the court might not be so appealing.

Headlines: US Marshalls Arrest Mayberry Sheriff for Declaring Mayberry 2nd Amendment Sanctuary after Court Upholds Ban on all Semiautomatic Weapons of War.

The decision came up after the sad incident where Clarence Thomas slipped off a yacht into shark infested Indonesian waters along with Justice Alito tripping and falling on trying to enter his protective 'tank'. The new justices - AOC and Gavin Newsome provided the votes to void Heller and Bruen.

 

[codytrucker]

When the composition of the court changes and major social issues flip yet again, the armed might of the court might not be so appealing.

Headlines: US Marshalls Arrest Mayberry Sheriff for Declaring Mayberry 2nd Amendment Sanctuary after Court Upholds Ban on all Semiautomatic Weapons of War.

The decision came up after the sad incident where Clarence Thomas slipped off a yacht into shark infested Indonesian waters along with Justice Alito tripping and falling on trying to enter his protective 'tank'. The new justices - AOC and Gavin Newsome provided the votes to void Heller and Bruen.

All of that could happen , I suppose. But as things stand all of the investigative agency's are under one roof , and the fox is guarding the hen's , rather brazenly . And scenarios not much different then what you describe are taking place because of it . The courts having another mechanism to enforce federal firearms law could turn out to be dangerous for our side in a blatantly anti-gun court , but we are always under that threat anyway . With an enforcement arm , things like being in contempt , or legislating from the bench , being an activist DA , could have consequences . Probably won't happen , but it would be nice to think court rulings that are Constitutional meant something real .

 

[jmorris]

So law makers and governors will pass bills and sign them into laws BUT the judges, ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide whether the laws are constitutional or not.

Where does not enforcing existing laws come into play? After all, they say they are working to keep us safe. Would enforcement of current laws not do that? How would new ones help?

 

[Aim1]

Update: