Jan 2025 SCOTUS 2A decisions/updates thread

[Loc]

So.... When the Districts dealing with AWB suits are all the same anti2A districts, with no pro2A districts having anything of the sort to produce a circuit Court split to force the issue... what then? How can we ensure that State level AWBs and mag bans go away?

Edit. Having a pro2A President (not necessarily Trump but his appointees have generally been a bit more for 2A than against) appoint more 2A Justices in more Federal Circuits?


And again, it does seem like more than one of the "conservative" Justices are in favor of allowing State level gun control laws to stay in place for whatever reasons?

Yes, appointing more pro-2A justices in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits would make some headway, but those circuits are so heavily weighted anti-2A, I don't know that there will be enough who expire or retire off the bench in the next 4 years for it to make much difference. Perhaps Sotomayor may step down soon due to health issues; that would be a stunning turn of events in our favor.

Yes, I do believe both Roberts and Coney-Barrett are in favor of these bans; they've both been major disappointments in that regard.

 

[CamoDeafie]

. Perhaps Sotomayor may step down soon due to health issues; that would be a stunning turn of events in our favor.

Sotomayor made it abundantly clear that she won't step down when there was noise about removing her, since it has proven nearly impossible so far to get rid of Thomas for whatever reasons they could cook up to ensure that SCOTUS will have a "more balanced"(read anti2A/insitutionalist/pro-govt) make-up

Yes, I do believe both Roberts and Coney-Barrett are in favor of these bans; they've both been major disappointments in that regard.

Yeah. But Barrett may not be the only one of the three newer "conservative" Justices

 

[quneur]

Roberts is not a conservative much less a Constitutionalist. He voted for Obama's individual mandates and he sided with the liberals in Roe v Wade.

 

[quneur]

The next session will come a slew of 2A lawsuits and I hope it will flood their docket showing how feckless Roberts and Barrett really are. The next four years is going to be brutal. States like OR , WA and CA are going to euphoric with new anti-2A laws knowing SCOTUS is too scared to touch them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Roberts is not a conservative much less a Constitutionalist. He voted for Obama's individual mandates and he sided with the liberals in Roe v Wade.

Compared to his predecessor Rehnquist; he's more conservative but compared to Alito and Thomas, he's way more liberal/""moderate"". Yes he's an Insitutionalist compared to Alito and Thomas. He often sides with the 3 clearly leftist Justices


However... Amy, and possibly Brett Kavanaugh (said to be more moderate than Alito); these two are the bigger questions marks. Gorsuch is also seemingly an Originalist/Textualism (similar if not the same as Alito and Thomas).


So there's 3 v 3 with 3 possible swings, two of whom have demonstrated a tendency to side with States on some topics and one possible wildcard.

 

[CamoDeafie]

On the topic of State level gun control versus Fed level gun control. I seem to recall the case of Montana's Firearms Freedom Act of 2008; in which the Feds, and Courts and SCOTUS I believe at that time... Took the position that firearms regulations are the province of Federal Government (ATF) when it comes to firearms covered under NFA/GCA and that Montana's law would affect interstate commerce

So on one hand; States can't be more loose on firearm regulations than the Federal because Federal Supremacy Clause and interstate commerce; right . But States can have more restrictive firearms regulations even though it absolutely influences and affect interstate commerce of firearms? why doesn't any of the 2A advocacy groups bring that up in their briefs....?


Edit. Basically

If States can't ignore NFA/GCA/FOPA Hughes Amendment because Federal Supremacy Clause and Interstate commerce;

Then States (logically) should not also restrict interstate commerce of firearms not Federally regulated

 

[Old Dog]

Yes, I do believe both Roberts and Coney-Barrett are in favor of these bans; they've both been major disappointments in that regard.

Roberts is no friend to the RKBA side. ACB is a closeted liberal. With any luck, a couple of the senior justices will die or retire and Trump can install some real 2A believers.

But really, I don't know why we even nurture hope that SCOTUS will come through for us. Several states, including Washington, have already proven beyond doubt that they can foist blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun upon their citizens with zero repercussions, and these laws, and our suffering, will regrettably stick around for years to come

 

[CamoDeafie]

Roberts is no friend to the RKBA side. ACB is a closeted liberal. With any luck, a couple of the senior justices will die or retire and Trump can install some real 2A believers.

But really, I don't know why we even nurture hope that SCOTUS will come through for us. Several states, including Washington, have already proven beyond doubt that they can foist blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun upon their citizens with zero repercussions, and these laws, and our suffering, will regrettably stick around for years to come

Here's the issue with that. The 3 "senior Justices" here are...

Thomas (33, years)-most 2A friendly

Roberts (19 years)-not that 2A friendly, despite Bruen

Alito (18 years)-most 2A friendly

Then
Sotomayor (15 years)-anti 2A

Kagan (14 years)-anti 2A

Gorsuch (7 years)-2A friendly

Kavanaugh (6 years)-maybe 2A friendly, maybe not

Barrett (4 years)-maybe not that friendly to 2A, similar to Roberts

Jackson (2 years) anti 2A


So by tenure, we'd be replacing Thomas first but he is so far the most 2A friendly, along with Alito... It'd be nice to replace Roberts but the issue comes to who would take his place that Congress would support? The rest......

 

[dhshred710]

.......

However... Amy, and possibly Brett Kavanaugh (said to be more moderate than Alito); these two are the bigger questions marks. Gorsuch is also seemingly an Originalist/Textualism (similar if not the same as Alito and Thomas). .....

Kav is an interesting one, he seems fine with state bans but against federal; Bruen he gave the softball to 2A lawyers in oral argument ("why debate scrutiny, if this is analogous to 1A, we should focus on THT"), brought up in the bump stock case that states have been banning binary triggers/similar devices for years, but also seemed fine with the idea of an AWB in heller rd 2 ruling (not on SCOTUS at the time, and dissented mostly on the way people had to register, not the definition of assault weapon).

ACB is a dice roll, she is far from Justice Thomas, but did write a dissent against lifetime bans for non-violent felons which has (since Bruen) been reiterated in a 9th circuit appellate ruling. She doesn't sound like someone that'll rule against bans on types of weapon though.

I think with some of them, it's more about having a ruling that relates more to separation of branches/statutory principle than 2A itself to avoid pro gun reputations in headlines.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Like I was saying; if States cannot ignore Fed level gun control because "interstate commerce and Fed Supremacy" ;then that means States should not get to ignore Fed level gun rights (2A) on its face, nor should States be able to interfere with Interstate Commerce of firearms.


Really, that's the sticking point that I think 2A groups should be bringing up before Fed District Courts.

Unless one can point to examples of States ignoring Fed level gun control without being sued or invalidated by the Feds.


Everything else may be window dressing or political points.

10 States plus DC have AWBs;
14 States plus DC have magazine bans

Supposedly 22 States require permits and or "background Checks" to purchase firearms, but 13 plus DC requires licenses or permit to buy (including WA State, apparently)-

How To Get A Gun License: State-By-State | Ammunition Depot

Learn how to get a gun license state-by-state in this comprehensive list. Some states have extra guidelines so it’s important to know how gun ownership works.

www.ammunitiondepot.com

3 States requires licenses to own firearms.


Most of these States have AWBs and mag bans and require permit/licenses to purchase firearms.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I will believe SCOTUS is interested in protecting our 2a Rights the day a decision quotes the 2a as the reason for the ruling.
Until that happens you will have a hard time convincing me that the 2a isn't only being used as a smokescreen for reshaping laws and regulations to benefit the oligarchs

 

[CamoDeafie]

Who exactly are the oligarchs? Are they in the room with us?

Not denying that 2A is being used as smoke screen.

And "reshaping laws and regulations"?

If you mean to more closely follow 2A while not using 2A as the reason.. sure.

If you mean ensuring that it's Congress who deals with laws and such, and not unelected bureaucrats, sure.

If you mean making sure citizens can have a path towards legal carry in certain States.. sure.

What's surprising is that none of the anti2A groups have sued any of the other States for being more free towards firearms

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Who exactly are the oligarchs? Are they in the room with us?

Nah, we don't rate

If you mean to more closely follow 2A while not using 2A as the reason.. sure.

I mean that a ruling needs to say this or something very close to this:
"The 2 Amendment Of The United States Constitution states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' and the case before us does infringe upon those Rights"


Ok, so you see this:

Not denying that 2A is being used as smoke screen.

But have a question about this?

And "reshaping laws and regulations"?

I may have missed on, but IIRC all or almost all of the 'pro 2a cases' have really been about loosening regulations that restrict businesses, and don't get me wrong, I do believe that there are issues with regulations and enforcement that need to be addressed, but from what I can tell any 'pro 2a' benefit has only been convenient or coincidental. I also don't buy the argument that they are just waiting for the 'right' 2a case, they have taken lots of very flimsy cases in the last couple years and there are almost countless examples of anti-2a laws around country that obviously infringe, they could take one on if they cared to, but they haven't which makes me believe that they don't care about protecting 2a unless it is a convenient way to address their real (ie "non 2a") goals

 

[CamoDeafie]

Nah, we don't rate

View attachment 2025773

Do those people control Congress and Fed regulatory agencies ? Or just "sponsor" some?

I mean that a ruling needs to say this or something very close to this:
"The 2 Amendment Of The United States Constitution states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' and the case before us does infringe upon those Rights"

That hasn't happened ever, to my relatively limited experience. have the SCOTUS directly used any of the 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) as the reason to strike down laws, or have they been rather... Roundabout?

Ok, so you see this:

But have a question about this?



I may have missed on, but IIRC all or almost all of the 'pro 2a cases' have really been about loosening regulations that restrict businesses, and don't get me wrong, I do believe that there are issues with regulations and enforcement that need to be addressed, but from what I can tell any 'pro 2a' benefit has only been convenient or coincidental. I also don't buy the argument that they are just waiting for the 'right' 2a case, they have taken lots of very flimsy cases in the last couple years and there are almost countless examples of anti-2a laws around country that obviously infringe, they could take one on if they cared to, but they haven't which makes me believe that they don't care about protecting 2a unless it is a convenient way to address their real (ie "non 2a") goals

It's generally in business best interests to be able to sell any and everything unregulated and to whoever they want to sell, opinions of lawyers and judges be damned. What reasons do businesses/companies have to not sell to highest bidder/customers, besides being prosecuted by State and Fed Govt?

Again, I've yet to see any anti2A Federal level suits brought against any other States for being "too lax" on gun regulations such as not requiring BG checks or requiring certain "qualifications" or requiring that they take the examples of the 10-14 States and DC to "clamp down" on "dangerous" arms and accessories


This is really why I'm suggesting using Fed Supremacy Clause and Interstate Commerce to strike down AWBs and mag bans. I'm aware that they wouldn't just say "we see this infringed 2A, as written, therefore it is null and void"... Because they also have not said "we see that this infringed on 1A/4A/5A, and therefore it's null and void and unenforceable"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Do those people control Congress and Fed regulatory agencies ? Or just "sponsor" some?

Post Citizens United, yeah, they do, but also, did you not see this one?

Because they also have not said "we see that this infringed on 1A/4A/5A, and therefore it's null and void and unenforceable"

A quick search turns up several SCOTUS rulings where 1A/4A/5A are specifically referenced in the decision, Heller, Breun and United States v. Rahimi are the only ones I saw that made note of 2a in the decision, but again, that was a quick search so I may have missed one or two

 

[CamoDeafie]

"reference" but not "Stated as the reason that this law/regulation is void".

Like I said, "roundabout" ways.

As for Musk... LOL. Government efficiency department but not Federal worker ("outside Government"). It doesn't mean he gets to control anything beyond whatever the department gets and there's very little chance that Congress will delegate anything to an outside department.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I have said this long time ago and frequently...

The job of the SCOTUS should be to tell Congress whether their bills are constitutional or not; not to "interpret" the Constitution to fit whatever agenda(s) they have in mind to make laws "constitutional".

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"reference" but not "Stated as the reason that this law/regulation is void".

Like I said, "roundabout" ways.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
1. The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 389 U. S. 350-353.


(a) The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 365 U. S. 511. P. 389 U. S. 353.


(b) Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. The "trespass" doctrine of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, and Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, is no longer controlling. Pp. 389 U. S. 351, 389 U. S. 353.

Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Read it here

Carpenter v. United States | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Carpenter v. United States

constitutioncenter.org

For 1a
CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

5a
Most notably
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

As for Musk... LOL. Government efficiency department but not Federal worker ("outside Government"). It doesn't mean he gets to control anything beyond whatever the department gets and there's very little chance that Congress will delegate anything to an outside department.

I was talking with someone the other day and she was going on and on about how she could not wait for Musk to cut all the dead wood from the .gov budget and I finally asked her "How?" Like how will he do that? He (and the silly Doge Dept) have no regulatory, legislative or financial authority, so aren't they just paying him a bunch of money to not do anything except voice an opinion?
Like kind of the opposite of cutting wasteful spending?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I don't see Snopes or Ocean state tactical on the order list released this morning. It wasn't denied as far as I can tell. As I understand it this is the last list for this term so what's the status of these 2 cases I wonder? Mark smith said earlier one of the options is moving it for consideration next term. Maybe that's what is going on here? I guess we'll know when mark smith does his next video.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012725zor_bp7c.pdf

 

[bcp]

Nothing on their individual SCOTUSblog pages this morning.

Snope v. Brown - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Bruce