Scotus passes on gun cases again.

[GEM]

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any cases to their merits docket for next term, nor did they seek the views of the federal government in any new cases. And perhaps most notably, the justices did not act on any of the Second Amendment cases that they have now considered at three consecutive conferences; somewhat unusually, the electronic dockets for those cases (see, for example, here) all indicated late last week – that is, before today’s order list was even released – that the cases had been relisted for the upcoming conference on Thursday, May 28.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

The reasons for this are open to speculation, of course. This is FYI.

 

[1942bull]

Being relisted is better than being denied.

 

[GEM]

That is true. It's all tea leaf reading.

 

[Aim1]

So, relisted......not denied cert?

 

[GEM]

Seems so. Tune in next week.

 

[1942bull]

So, relisted......not denied cert?

The cases are relisted for the end of this month. There are ten applications for Second Amendment issues. A lawyer I know inDC who has argued cases in the Supreme Court told me that the cases were most likely resisted so that Some of the cases can be combined because several cases involve the same issue from different Circuits. Apparently that takes a bit of time by the law clerks. The lawyer I know says he is as certain as one can be that some of the cases are going to be heard because it only takes 4 Justices to agree on accepting the case and Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are all on record disapproving of District and Circuit Courts and State legislators disregarding prior 2A SCOTUS decisions. Justice Roberts will be critical once if and when any of the cases are heard and decided. Here Is hoping for a good outcome.

 

[Aim1]

How do you get alerts on SCOTUS Blog?

 

[1942bull]

How do you get alerts on SCOTUS Blog?

I am not absolutely positive, but I do not think there is anyway to get alerts if by that word you mean notifications. It’s homepage is a blog, and the easiest way to be current is check it once a day.

 

[Aim1]

I am not absolutely positive, but I do not think there is anyway to get alerts if by that word you mean notifications. It’s homepage is a blog, and the easiest way to be current is check it once a day.

Thanks!

 

[D.B. Cooper]

How do you get alerts on SCOTUS Blog?

Subscribe to Guns & Gadgets on youtube (for 2A relates stuff anyway). That guy posts videos discussing that blog almost as soon as they appear. It's as though he watches it 24/7. If I were ever to pay a youtuber, it would be him.

 

[1942bull]

Yesterday Scotusblog.com published an article that included important insights into the 10 Second Amendment cases that has petitioned for Certiorari and which have been relisted. In previous posts I have suggeste that being relisted is a good thing, and that it was becoming clear that SCOTUS was delaying decisions to determine what cases could be combined. The article provides a synopsis of each 2A case issues.

You will notice in the article that the author refers. To the fact that most relisted cases are heard by the court. This could be good news for gun owners because the ten cases get into permitting and limits on gun sales by requiring certain features and limiting other feature and by limiting ammo capacity. The following excerpts from the article offer the important details. The full long article can be read at:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/relist-watch-looking-for-the-living-among-the-dead/#more-294078

John Elwood reviews Friday’s relists


Because the Supreme Court usually relists every case it is going to grant, the absence of a Friday relist for the other cases from last week’s conference suggested that, come Monday, the non-relisted cases would be dead on arrival. This week, that proved to be correct, including for some closely watched cases with significant amicus support.

All of last week’s relists are back, including most notably the 10 Second Amendment cases that have been kicking around for a while.

Mance v. Barr, 18-663

Issue: Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Rogers v. Grewal, 18-824

Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Pena v. Horan, 18-843

Issue: Whether California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.

Gould v. Lipson, 18-1272

Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Cheeseman v. Polillo, 19-27

Issue: Whether states can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.

Ciolek v. New Jersey, 19-114

Issue: Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need,” which, as defined, does not include general self-defense, for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.

Worman v. Healey, 19-404

Issue: Whether Massachusetts’ ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes unconstitutionally infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second AmendmentM

.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi, 19-423

Issue: In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry-permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/culp-v-raoul/

Culp v. Raoul, 19-487

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.

Wilson v. Cook County, 19-704

Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether a regulation bans (a) weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (b) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (c) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

Roberts is indeed a bit of a question. He did sign on with Heller and McDonald so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, he has become a bit of a wildcard as of late especially with his desire to depoliticize the courts. If you don't see any of these cases granted cert it is quite possible that at least one the four justices on record supporting 2A cert grants are concerned that Roberts would not be a reliable fifth vote in a decision favorable to 2A. I would be surprised to see a grant for an "assault weapon" ban case but you never know with these things. The supreme court is difficult to figure out at times. If these cases hang around much longer without a grant they won't get one. The longer cases hang around the less likely they are to receive a grant statistically. Let's see what happens Monday morning.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

No action today on any of the 2A cases. No grants and no denials of cert.

 

[1942bull]

The Duke Center for Firearms Law Website has an interesting article calling for SCOTUS to hear some of the 2A cases that have been resisted. It explains the disarray of 2A decisions in the CIrcuit. Courts and explain the complexity. For members who are following the progress of SCOTUS decision making related to this thread it is a good read, It can be read at:
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/0...s-open-splits-and-concealed-vehicle-problems/

 

[GEM]

The outcome should be there are no restrictions on carry unless the person is a convicted felon. I am of the belief that 'no restrictions' should include that businesses open to the public cannot ban carry as defense of life trumps property rights (esp. since every business has to conform to a myraid of other restrictions). The only exception is a clear technical danger as in the famous gun in the MRI.

Second, no restrictions of type of firearm and magazine capacity except that I would accept the greater than 50 cal, explosive restrictions. I would free the NFA registry ( I could live the fee) and get rid of all the SBR, suppressor nonsense.

Of course, this won't happen. I predict a positive decision might have poison bills from Roberts that still allow 'reasonable' restrictions.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

That Duke Center for Firearms Law article is a good read... thanks. Of all the 2A petitions in front of the court, one of those concerned with providing "reason" for obtaining permit to carry may have a decent chance of being heard. There is at least a split in the lower courts regarding that issue. And for that reason I am skeptical of an "assault weapon" petition grant because lower courts have consistently come to the same conclusion (albeit via differing means which itself is a bit of a question) and have not yet split (although the 4th circuit almost did until it went en banc). If there were a split on the "assault weapon" issue then it would be more likely to be granted. If for some reason an "assault weapon" petition were granted cert and Heller was applied as written the justices would have a hard time upholding a ban on commonly owned semi-auto rifles used for lawful purposes. I do however question if that same protection would extend to magazines of a certain capacity or if states would be given some wiggle room on restrictions to magazine capacity. But as they say, "who knows". I've been wrong before.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You might wish to see who are the attorneys on those cases as a means of determining which cases are granted certiorari. For example, attorney for petitioner in Pena v Horan is Alan Gura. Malpasso is represented by Clement

There are some other top 2nd Amend guns on some of the others as well— Jenson, Schumatter

I think you can bet on Gura and Clement getting their petitions granted

 

[GEM]

No action on gun cases again: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/relist-watch-160/#more-294203
I'm not a betting man.

 

[legaleagle_45]

No action on gun cases again: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/relist-watch-160/#more-294203
I'm not a betting man.

The action of granting or denying cert usually happens on Monday. That is the case now— this action was merely a relist of a couple of new cases, not a decision on cert.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

9:30 AM tomorrow morning. Stay tuned. Something should happen soon. A grant, a denial, who knows. The current term wraps up at the end of this month and a number of these cases have been hanging around for quite some time!

 

[GEM]

I didn't see anything today, but I'm no expert on reading this stuff.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

Correct. No certs, no denials for the 2A cases. They are still hanging around I guess. We'll see if they are relisted for this Thursday.

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

Relisted for this Thursday's conference the outcome of which, if there are any grants or denials, will be announced next Monday.....

 

[Zippy_the_slug]

It appears that cert has been denied on all Second Amendment cases listed in this thread.

Link to today's order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061520zor_f2bh.pdf

 

[GEM]

Pretty much a total wipe out. So much for waiting for Scotus to save gun rights.

Here's the cases again:

1. 18-663

MANCE, FREDRIC, R., ET AL. V. BARR, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.

The motion of The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

2. Mance v. Barr, 18-663
Issue: Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

3. 19-27

CHEESEMAN, MARK V. POLILLO, JOSEPH, ET AL.

Cheeseman v. Polillo, 19-27
Issue: Whether states can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

4.
Rogers v. Grewal, 18-824
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

5.
Gould v. Lipson, 18-1272
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

6.
Ciolek v. New Jersey, 19-114
Issue: Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need,” which, as defined, does not include general self-defense, for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

7.
Worman v. Healey, 19-404
Issue: Whether Massachusetts’ ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes unconstitutionally infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

8.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi, 19-423
Issue: In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry-permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

9.
Culp v. Raoul, 19-487
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)

10.
Wilson v. Cook County, 19-704
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether a regulation bans (1) weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.

11.
18-843
PENA, IVAN, ET AL. V. HORAN, MARTIN

Pena v. Horan, 18-843
Issue: Whether California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
(relisted after the May 1 conference)