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

[Aim1]

I read on Twitter that one of the groups suing was using the Equal Protections clause since law enforcement is allowed to have AWs and High Capacity Magazines and your average citizen is not.

Some thought that was a bad idea as they should have went with the "in common use" path instead.


Thoughts on that?

 

[Jim Watson]

There are a lot of cops, so anything a cop carries looks like common use to me.
Doubt the lawyers see it that way.

 

[GEM]

Thought so. So much for the Gods of Gun Rights ruled by Clarence and Alito. Same as the NY CCIA. Y'all get so excited that Scotus will save us. BS - this process will take years and the bans will hold for years. Now, someone will say that Scotus had to do it because of procedure and the majesty of the court. They are waiting until the circuits do their job while The Gods give them the stink eye from their yachts or bodyguarded tanks.

But wait Bruen was going to wash away those sorts of bans in flash of Glory!! Meantime, some domestic abuse cases get processed in a supposed pro gun manner. However, regular folks - no carry for you in some states, no EBRs for you.

 

[PapaG]

I am,........disappointed.

 

[JERRY]

There's a lot before the SCOTUS this year. The Biden student loan debt dismissal and several anti 2nd amendment cases...

 

[illinoisburt]

Though the outcome is the law is still enforceable until the parties have their days in court, the actions of the Supreme Court actually did have positive affect on the case. It's been the common practice for years (decades in NY) for local courts to draw out these types of cases for as long as practical then make changes to the laws when they are close to being finally decided to start the process over. By agreeing to look at the case and demanding answers from the local government to defend their laws, the SC pushed the circuit court to consolidate their cases and set dates for hearing next month with strict guidelines that the cases cannot be delayed off into the future. The court will likely issue an opinion before they go on recess in August. Regardless of the outcome it's probable the cases will then be appealed to the SC for their review. No, it's not great comfort for people in Illinois who have to deal with the restrictions but it does mean the standard delay tactics are not going to work this time around.

 

[JERRY]

Though the outcome is the law is still enforceable until the parties have their days in court, the actions of the Supreme Court actually did have positive affect on the case. It's been the common practice for years (decades in NY) for local courts to draw out these types of cases for as long as practical then make changes to the laws when they are close to being finally decided to start the process over. By agreeing to look at the case and demanding answers from the local government to defend their laws, the SC pushed the circuit court to consolidate their cases and set dates for hearing next month with strict guidelines that the cases cannot be delayed off into the future. The court will likely issue an opinion before they go on recess in August. Regardless of the outcome it's probable the cases will then be appealed to the SC for their review. No, it's not great comfort for people in Illinois who have to deal with the restrictions but it does mean the standard delay tactics are not going to work this time around.

This in Illinois, student debt, and pistol braces are all going to be decided by the SCOTUS.

 

[CapnMac]

The very "anti" judge in the Northern District denied the Stay; the more sensible judge in the Southern District upheld the Stay.
The people of Illinois would be in an unholy bind is a state-wide law is enjoined in part of the State and not in the rest.
SCOTUS basically "sided" with enacted law in deciding the Stay.

The case against the AWB remains in Federal court (the 7 separate cases are now consolidated into the one case), and remains to be decided.

The decision ends the "run" on LGS in IL for the moment, but it does not mean that the AWB will stand.

And, this may well wind up mooted if the CA AWB gets tossed.

The legacy press is championing this as a huge victory, because they don't have all that many to crow about. It's worth noting that, three days' ago, they were predicting the End of the World As We Know it, because a Stay was granted in the Southern District.

 

[codytrucker]

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

We'll , I at least got a phone call from my Senators office saying they will make sure to pass it on to the DC office . I suppose a phone call is better then an automated response Email . After the last couple weeks I really do hope they consider it , we have certain govt. agency's that are desperately in need of outside oversight .

 

[Hacker15E]

Lets remember that this decision was made on the procedural merits of the request being made, e.g. the "shadow docket" process for SCOTUS.

Declining to make the ruling has nothing to do with the legal merit or validity of the AWBs being considered in the case.

 

[LiveLife]

Declining to make the ruling has nothing to do with the legal merit or validity of the AWBs being considered in the case.

 

[GEM]

Let's remember that they had the power to grant the TRO as they did in NY. In NY, the law deprived us of self-defense rights. That trumps "procedural merits" as always cited by Scotus apologists. It costs them nothing to grant the orders while letting the procedures grind on.

We will see how long the bans stay in place while Scotus observes its procedures. It is nowhere clear that Clarence and Alito can carry the other 4 for a decisive overturning of AWBs and laws like the CCIA.

 

[JN01]

You're right, Thomas is the worst justice ever, all is lost, might as well get rid of all your guns now.

 

[DoubleMag]

''You're right, Thomas is the worst justice ever, all is lost, might as well get rid of all your guns now.''

 

[GEM]

If he and Alito don't come across with removing the CCIA from NYS and the various AWBs across the country is less than several years (OH, the procedure) - I have little use for him. I won't comment on his other decisions in detail - not relevant to THR.

It's just like Scalia love - Heller was brilliant but full of flaws which were and still used against the RKBA. We will see how Bruen plays out. Oh, there are other cases - so what - like pig pen rights?

 

[natman]

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.

Asking SCOTUS to get involved in an ongoing trial was always a Hail Mary. The good news is that it forced the Circuit Court to escalate the case for prompt consideration, so we should get their verdict relatively soon. All the sooner to get it to SCOTUS.

 

[GEM]

They use their Shadow Agenda when they feel like it. Here's the point - are they dedicated to the RKBA or not. If procedure is more important - that's a fail. It costs them nothing to support the various TROs while the lower courts percolate the cases in a cup of Bruen Brew. It would give people their rights back but it seems that is never important in these threads. Let's just wait on Clarence to get off the pot, no matter how long it deprives folks of rights.

Right now, they pretty much know how they feel on the bans and CCIA type laws. It's not like some brief will open their eyes to something new. So they just play their dominance games forcing a court to escalate. Why? Is that important to us, the end user of the RKBA. No, it is not. They have lost focus on rights in favor of their exalted position.

 

[LiveLife]

We will see how Bruen plays out

Had Hillary won in 2016, Bruen ruling would have gone very differently as "two step" approach to 2A cases would have remained and we would not be having this discussion as justice Thomas and Alito's comments would have been dissenting.

Since we dodged a planet sized bullet with "Second Amendment is not a second class right" comment by justice Thomas, let's see how Second Amendment applied to "modern" types of arms such as magazine fed semi-auto firearms and disability accommodating accessories fare compared to "modern" forms of free speech like email/text.

Long live the Republic.

 

[TTv2]

Asking SCOTUS to get involved in an ongoing trial was always a Hail Mary. The good news is that it forced the Circuit Court to escalate the case for prompt consideration, so we should get their verdict relatively soon. All the sooner to get it to SCOTUS.

I don't want to go down the 4D Chess route, but that may have been the plan by the 5 on Scotus as the decision accelerates the timeframe it would be granted cert and ruled on.

It's possible that the Justices and their clerks have come up with a way to knock out AWB, magazine capacity laws, and even state bans of NFA items all in this IL case.

 

[GEM]

That's what we always hear- it's a great move. In the times of Heller's first release, it seemed to leave open AWBs - debate by Scalia fans. He was said to be a wily old bird setting a trap so that in the next case, AWBs would be eliminated. Well, that didn't happen. The court never took up a case and Scalia and Clarence fumed. Many obnoxious gun restrictions stayed in place. In CA, weird acceptable gun rules were in. In NYS, despite Heller saying you could have a gun, denial of handgun permits continued to the present day.

We will see if this is really the case. The clock is ticking on Clarence - age and corruption - he goes, a new justice and it's a new game. That's why I said they should have used any power they had to move - and not worry about the procedure and scolding of the lower courts.

 

[natman]

I don't want to go down the 4D Chess route, but that may have been the plan by the 5 on Scotus as the decision accelerates the timeframe it would be granted cert and ruled on.

It's possible that the Justices and their clerks have come up with a way to knock out AWB, magazine capacity laws, and even state bans of NFA items all in this IL case.

Right now it's a race between the Maryland AW ban Bianchi v Frosh that SCOTUS has already granted cert, cert granted Duncan v Bonta and related cases in the Ninth and Illinois' ban to see which one percolates its way back up to SCOTUS first. SCOTUS has already laid the foundation to knock out AW bans and magazine limits with the common use test. It's sadly amusing to see the pretzel logic antis are using to try and define 20 million rifles and bazillions of magazines as not being "in common use".

 

[illinoisburt]

We will see if this is really the case. The clock is ticking on Clarence - age and corruption - he goes, a new justice and it's a new game.

Very true, though unfortunately the current court which agrees with 2A rights is a fairly pragmatic group who do so probably more out of adherence to the black letter of the laws than personal care about the right. That also means they stick closely to the customary court process and procedures which are slow.

 

[Jim Watson]

That is my cynical and pessimistic view.
The statists (Just because the Democrats are against me doesn't mean the Republicans are for me.) have effectively unlimited resources, we are paying our lawyers and theirs too.
A clerk can generate a bill for hiser Congressthing to propose and ram through consideration in a few months; even if patently unconstitutional, it will take years to grind through the courts, while the statists revise it just enough to make it moot or look for new workarounds.

 

[GEM]

Exactly, that is why clear and decisive rulings, in real time are needed. Workarounds are the game. In Bruen, folks were all atwitter about Clarence saying you couldn't ban Manhattan - thinking that could negate broad local bans. How clever. But it was preplanned (and I've heard the Bruen folks were warned) that the opt in business ban along with other local bans, plus a gun in the car impossible storage rule would destroy NY carry. So the Bruen folks thought that was OK because we would wait for the golden decision when the laws went back to court, eventuall - see how that worked for Scalia OR Clarence was simply out thought on a possible response.

They need to say that bans on any semiautomatic weapon, of any configuration or any possible capacity and any caliber 50 cal or below are unconstitutional (you can argue about adding caliber but I could see folks trying to limit them to 22 LR, etc.). Similarly, magazines or other ammunition holding devices of any capacity cannot be banned.

The reason is the 2nd Amendment and forget what Humford Doodlybants did in 1791. The purpose was self-defense and defense against tyranny and that's how you do it in modern times. Just like saying a free press includes free electronic media as science marches - same for firearms.

Locale bans - no locale, public or private (if open for business to the public) can ban the carry of concealed firearms unless there is a highly technical reason such as in airplane or MRI room. Now folks can argue about permitted vs. constitutional carry.

 

[CapnMac]

It's sadly amusing to see the pretzel logic antis are using to try and define 20 million rifles and bazillions of magazines as not being "in common use".

With the glorious fillip where State of Illinois keeps asserting that "there's no difference between an M-16 and an AR-15" (therefore any ban on FA M-16 must needs also apply to SA ARs, QED).

Reductio ad absurdum, is typically the "we have nothing left to suggest" in an argument. Particularly in legal issues where the participants are expected to have some, slight, skill in forensics. Asserting "the floor is lava!" is unlikely sway a wishy-washy Justice.