Musings on the Latest SCOTUS / 2A Activities

[JunkCollector]

Our state has tried similar and been sued under the Pittman Robertson act and caved so they wouldn't loose all federal monies.

They're probably pretty loose with the money anyway...

So loose they try to steal it to house illegals

[Bigslug]

So, the latest moves in the chess game:

The plaintiffs in Duncan v. Bonta (California's mag ban case) just filed a brief with SCOTUS calling for action. As a result of the 3rd Circuit striking down the New Jersey AW and mag ban in Cheeseman v. Platkin, we now have a circuit split between the full panel of the 3rd and earlier decisions from the full panel of the 9th. Since SCOTUS decided to hang onto Duncan until next term - presumably to ponder what to do with it after taking on the big Viramontes and Grant AW cases, we might see a more aggressive action on deciding the mag issue.

And, frustratingly, but understandably, NJ asked the 3rd for, and got a stay of enacting the mandate on ceasing enforcement of the NJ rifle ban until SCOTUS rules on Viramontes. I guess you can thank our "Freedom Week" in California for that. Sooo, basically, NJ is now in a state of "It's only been 36 years; what's one more?"

Right direction (YAY!) That I've gone from being a young man to an old man living with this crap (BOO!)

[Freezer]

I found this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMPaVcuohs

[CPJ 2.0]

I found this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMPaVcuohs

It’s AI.
So I’m not watching.

[Freezer]

Damn I just learned something new, I couldn't tell. I was watching something else, saw this and clicked on it.

[Bigslug]

Yeah. . .lot of AI-generated stuff in the 2A blab-sphere.. I gave that one a few minutes - seemed to have a tenuous grasp on the matters at hand.

[Bigslug]

Lot of good amicus briefs being dropped this week on behalf of our cause for the upcoming combined Viramontes/Grant AW case this term. Washington Gun Law and Four Boxes Diner have both been pretty busy with it all and worth catching up on their last few days.

Notably, the NAGR brief is calling for the broadest possible ruling to protect not just the AR-15 and similar rifles, but to also protect all possible accessories, magazines, and "features" to prevent the weaselly loophole bans we've been seeing post-Heller and Bruen. Essentially, the call was to slam the door on all that nonsense now, so we don't have to keep bashing our heads against it for the next 4 decades.

The GOA one was pretty epic, effectively saying "Yes, they're militaristic. That was the whole POINT of the 2A, and should be seen as reason NOT to ban them".

I'm not familiar with the cases, but it seems Trump just pardoned half a dozen guys that got railroaded by the Biden Admin's weaponized BATF.

Exciting times!

[Japhy]

In AZ there has been some change particularly with suppressors. The big picture may be different and even with a few favorable resolutions its still a state by state and even city by city mess.
We may see a 2 year window but 2029 is likely to be ugly.

A question for the Colorado folks
What restrictions are in place for private transfers?
Example If a CO resident makes private buy in AZ?
As far as I know there is no regulation in AZ covering private sales.

[sakodude]

far as I know nothing has changed here. We are still required to go through the tax stamp process.

[Bigslug]

In AZ there has been some change particularly with suppressors. The big picture may be different and even with a few favorable resolutions its still a state by state and even city by city mess. . .

There's definitely an undercurrent of "the patchwork is the problem" in the running dialog of the AW case briefs, to the tune of "41 out of 50 states don't think there's anything wrong with them".

If anything, this current suppressor mess may work for us, as the simplest way to unravel all the local crap is to just lay it down as "Look, 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed, you stupid f888s", along with a big heaping scoop of "These bans of Bill of Rights items are NOT among those powers reserved to the states".

[Zorba]

In AZ there has been some change particularly with suppressors. The big picture may be different and even with a few favorable resolutions its still a state by state and even city by city mess. . .

There's definitely an undercurrent of "the patchwork is the problem" in the running dialog of the AW case briefs, to the tune of "41 out of 50 states don't think there's anything wrong with them".

If anything, this current suppressor mess may work for us, as the simplest way to unravel all the local crap is to just lay it down as "Look, 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed, you stupid f888s", along with a big heaping scoop of "These bans of Bill of Rights items are NOT among those powers reserved to the states".

Nobody's got the balls to say/do anything like this. Like the rest of America, SCOTUS is pretty pussified.

[Justsomedude]

What happens when they just keep infringing anyways?

[Zorba]

What happens when they just keep infringing anyways?

Yea, like California for instance. They're not too concerned about legality or constitutionality.

[breamfisher]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ss-second/

[Wambli Ska]

far as I know nothing has changed here. We are still required to go through the tax stamp process.

If the state requires the Federal paperwork then you still have to get it because it’s state law. Nevada unfortunately is one of those. But this will be tested in court too.

[CPJ 2.0]

far as I know nothing has changed here. We are still required to go through the tax stamp process.

If the state requires the Federal paperwork then you still have to get it because it’s state law. Nevada unfortunately is one of those. But this will be tested in court too.

If they do that because it’s the easy way, (good for the feds, it’s good for us) I think it will be changed pretty easily.

If you live in New York or California or commie states, yeah naw. You’re ****.

[Bigslug]

Oral arguments for Viramontes/Grant set for December 2nd at SCOTUS. Set your alarms.

[Wambli Ska]

far as I know nothing has changed here. We are still required to go through the tax stamp process.

If the state requires the Federal paperwork then you still have to get it because it’s state law. Nevada unfortunately is one of those. But this will be tested in court too.

If they do that because it’s the easy way, (good for the feds, it’s good for us) I think it will be changed pretty easily.

If you live in New York or California or commie states, yeah naw. You’re ****.

Yeah several states already are looking to strike down state requirements. I’m pretty sure Nevada will be one. And yep, MA, NY, NJ will fight with everything they have. Actually I believe in several of those cans are outright banned so this changes nothing for them or their residents.

[Bigslug]

In AZ there has been some change particularly with suppressors. The big picture may be different and even with a few favorable resolutions its still a state by state and even city by city mess. . .

There's definitely an undercurrent of "the patchwork is the problem" in the running dialog of the AW case briefs, to the tune of "41 out of 50 states don't think there's anything wrong with them".

If anything, this current suppressor mess may work for us, as the simplest way to unravel all the local crap is to just lay it down as "Look, 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be infringed, you stupid f888s", along with a big heaping scoop of "These bans of Bill of Rights items are NOT among those powers reserved to the states".

Nobody's got the balls to say/do anything like this. Like the rest of America, SCOTUS is pretty pussified.

Bill Kirk has been doing a vid or two per day synopsizing the better of the 40+ amicus briefs that have been submitted thus far. This one from Illinois speaks to this very question of scrotus of the SCOTUS with regard to the flippancy of some of the lower courts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4I5ivnFHck

Front and center in many of them is calling attention to the gun control advocates familiar play of "look for a hole in the mosquito netting, then try to fly a 747 through it". There's been indications that a number of the justices are pissed about this - if they want to get landmarky, these are assuredly the cases.

[Zorba]

Front and center in many of them is calling attention to the gun control advocates familiar play of "look for a hole in the mosquito netting, then try to fly a 747 through it". There's been indications that a number of the justices are pissed about this - if they want to get landmarky, these are assuredly the cases.

I'll believe it when I see it. There's probably more chance that I'd buy a PHOOOOOONNE than to have something like this truly happen - but I would LOVE to be wrong.

[CPJ 2.0]

The Mo-Lester Pro-Tectors have weighed in.

https://youtu.be/CxalRofoSKo?is=j9GSbgabawGOuMiy

[Bigslug]

The Mo-Lester Pro-Tectors have weighed in.

Render unto Caesar. . .render unto God. . .blah blah blah. They can both get in line. I'll be rendering beeswax for bullet lube.

I'm actually eager to hear what the opposing briefs from the other side have to say. The Enemy is going to have to lay a lot of cards on the table - - -which really, they've kinda been doing with their ongoing post-Bruen shenanigagns. There's likely to be a fair bit of "your argument is invalid" written in response to that, and so they've probably lit their own playhouse on fire - makes me smile a bit. . .

The possibility of 50-state reciprocity will at least be getting conferenced on September 28. Whether they decided to grant cert on it is anyone's guess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIC09tac4TA

I'm wondering if they're what ORDER they want to start dropping decisions in. For example, we seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of Wolford more clearly defining Bruen. A 50-state carry ruling would certainly be an EXCELLENT place to lay down language explaining that the 2nd Amendment doesn't end at a particular state line. That language would be massively helpful in stomping rifle and mag bans into the dirt, but it could just as easily be played in reverse.

[Zorba]

Suits and Bible Thumpers...

[Bigslug]

Bill Kirk continuing his breakdowns on the Viramontes amicus briefs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0z8VX8Ckd4

The pro-AR-15 argument of the black, Asian, LGBT minorities pretty much knocks it out of the park.

[Japhy]

5Th Circuit on Friday reverses provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibit handguns from being sold directly from licensed firearms dealers to buyers across state lines.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/app ... titutional

will be interesting to see where this goes. This will be an instant conflict with other appeals courts.