10 Second Amendment cases relisted for the Supreme Court conference on Friday (5/15/20)

[Safiel]

The following 10 Second Amendment cases have been relisted for conference by the Supreme Court on Friday, May 15. There is a high likelihood at least 1 will be granted. We will find out when the resulting Order List is released at 9:30 am, Monday, May 18.

Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.

Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi – 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.

Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.

Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.

The Supreme Court is looking for a sturdy case that cannot be easily mooted by the Respondents as was the case with the New York City case. It is possible that they may grant multiple cases to ensure against any possible attempt at mooting.

I think the ultimate outcome will be a far stronger Second Amendment scheme.

[WuWei]

They need to staple the 2nd to heads on the “outside of home and special needs” cases.

[Ben_Natuf]

@Safiel

Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

irrelevant, it does not infringe on either keeping or bearing arms and the commerce clause would allow it.

@Safiel

In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

of course it violates the 2nd amendment. you can’t very well bear arms if you can’t carry them.

@Safiel

In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment

interesting question. the answer would seem to be if the ban is so broad that it effectively stops some people from buying handguns then it is an infringement.

@Safiel

Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

since the 2nd amendment identifies a militia as a reason for not infringing on the right, it would be silly to think you can ban the very weapons you’d want the militia to use.

@Safiel

Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.

of course not, that’s silly. what should happen is Illinois should honor the permits from other states just as we honor driver licences.

the rest are duplicates.

[Safiel]

@Ben_Natuf

(snipped for brevity)

the rest are duplicates.

The underlying legal doctrine that will likely emerge from the chosen case/s is more important than the topic of the individual cases.

Underlying doctrine is more important than the bottom line ruling.

Two doctrines that need to be established.

1. All statutes, ordinances and regulations that potentially conflict with a Second Amendment right must be subjected to strict scrutiny the highest possible constitutional standard.

2. Ancillary to #1 above, an undue burden needs to be established for the Second Amendment, similar to that which exists for abortion rights.

Undue burden has saved the right to abortion from a death by a thousand cuts and it can do the same for gun rights if forcibly implemented by the Supreme Court.

[Ben_Natuf]

i can see the permit cases and MA case driving (1)

not sure if CA gets to (2) because I’m unsure of the scope of the ban. IL would fit here, but it seems a poor vehicle.