More 2nd A news

[hpdrifter]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/su...n-under-bruen/

Along those lines, the Supreme Court today GVR’d (granted cert, vacated the lower court rulings and remanded for reconsideration) the following cases in which the lower courts had upheld the gun control laws in question.
Young v. Hawaii — Challenges Hawaii’s ban on open carry as infringing citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear firearms outside the home.


Bianchi v. Frosh — Challenges Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban under Heller’s common use language.

ANJRPC v. Grewal — Challenges New Jersey’s “high capacity” magazine ban for violating the Second Amendment, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Duncan v. Bonta — Challenges California’s “high capacity” magazine ban as violating the Second and Fifth Amendments as well as the two-step interest-balancing process explicitly repudiated in the Bruen ruling.

all sent back to lower court to be reconsidered under Bruen

[hpdrifter]

Daaaaang, I figured SCOTUS knocking down a "assault weapon" ban and a high capacity magazine would be good news here.

Must be a bunch of gun control idjits here.

[tvc184]

Daaaaang, I figured SCOTUS knocking down a "assault weapon" ban and a high capacity magazine would be good news here.

Must be a bunch of gun control idjits here.

It would be a good thing but they have not done so yet.

[hpdrifter]

It would be a good thing but they have not done so yet.

all but. they vacated the lower court rulings.
they sent it back to reconsider. I think they mean make it conform to Bruen and Heller.
if it conforms to Bruen and Heller, it'll have to be corrected, meaning "not upheld".

[tvc184]

all but. they vacated the lower court rulings.
they sent it back to reconsider. I think they mean make it conform to Bruen and Heller.
if it conforms to Bruen and Heller, it'll have to be corrected, meaning "not upheld".

I understand the process but for now the law stands. Those courts will put it back on the docket and they may change or they may not, in which case it will end up back at the Supreme Court. That might be around 2025.

This has been brought up in other threads but typically the Supreme Court only answers the narrow question in front of them.

In this case they sent information that their recent ruling might lead to the different answering of other questions. Those questions have not come in front of the SC at this time so we cannot answer them.

[SabineHunter]

Daaaaang, I figured SCOTUS knocking down a "assault weapon" ban and a high capacity magazine would be good news here.

Must be a bunch of gun control idjits here.

I think you jumped the pooch on this one.

[hpdrifter]

I still believe it is good news. I believe under their Heller and current rulings they'll become mostly unlawful laws.
They could have just refused to hear the cases and let them stand. I suppose that would be better news.

[SabineHunter]

I still believe it is good news. I believe under their Heller and current rulings they'll become mostly unlawful laws.

I hope you are right

[tvc184]

I still believe it is good news. I believe under their Heller and current rulings they'll become mostly unlawful laws.
They could have just refused to hear the cases and let them stand. I suppose that would be better news.

It is great news. It signals that they may be looking at other cases in the future.

It is far from a done deal and any good outcome could potentially be several years down the road.

At least for the moment, the general 6-3 split in the SC might do as you suggest and simply let the lower court rulings stand. It takes 4 SC justices to vote to hear a case.

If the 9th Circuit in California overturns the high capacity magazine ban, the SC can simply refuse the case. That would accomplish the constitutional issue without having to take up time for the SC. If the 9th refuses to overturn the magazine ban, someone can try to get the case to the SC and at least 4 constitutional justices would probably vote to hear the case. That would take a lot of time and effort and it would be much better if the 9th simply threw out the ban.

But it is a good thing that they are looking at it. Time will tell but don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

[hpdrifter]

It is great news. It signals that they may be looking at other cases in the future.

It is far from a done deal and any good outcome could potentially be several years down the road.

At least for the moment, the general 6-3 split in the SC might do as you suggest and simply let the lower court rulings stand. It takes 4 SC justices to vote to hear a case.

If the 9th Circuit in California overturns the high capacity magazine ban, the SC can simply refuse the case. That would accomplish the constitutional issue without having to take up time for the SC. If the 9th refuses to overturn the magazine ban, someone can try to get the case to the SC and at least 4 constitutional justices would probably vote to hear the case. That would take a lot of time and effort and it would be much better if the 9th simply threw out the ban.

But it is a good thing that they are looking at it. Time will tell but don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

The Supreme Court sent it back for reconsideration with the instruction that a two step process is one step too many. The lower can't use the "good for society" argument and must rely on "constitutionality" for it's decision.
If, I say if, they come to the conclusion that the rulings do not now conform to the Constitution , Gruen, and Heller and can't be upheld because it is good for society, that'll be just as good as SCOTUS saying so to me.

Heller states "in common use" and the AR15 and high capacity mags fit that description.

Besides, the title say "More 2nd A News"
Maybe got a little excited and said "knocked" these issue down in the second post; implying already, but in essence, I believe they have.
Just couldn't believe no one even said a word. Yeah, good, or otherwise.
All of the "cold dead hands" types on here....