The Supreme Court Moves 10 Second Amendment Cases to Conference on 1 May, 2020

Gun Watch ^ | 7 May, 2020 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Dean Weingarten in Front of Supreme Court of the United States

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the New York Rifle & Pistol case in 2019, it was big news. The lower courts in the circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been busy rendering the Second Amendment a second tier Constitutional right. Some members of the Court, notably Justice Clarence Thomas, had written about it.

A few days ago, the Court ruled the New York Rifle & Pistol case was moot. Four justices indicated they should grant a writ of certiorari (hear the case) of another Second Amendment case. The strong implication was the split in the courts and poor treatment of the Second Amendment by several appeals courts made taking a Second Amendment case important.

It takes four Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case (grant a writ of certiorari). Four justices say they want to hear a case.

There are at least ten Second Amendment cases in the pipeline, waiting to be heard at a Supreme Court conference, where the decision to grant a writ of Certiorari will be made.

Ten Second Amendment cases have been scheduled for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 1 May, 2020. Hat tip to Second Thoughts Blog at Duke. Those cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:

 Mance v. Barr
 A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).

Rogers v. Grewal
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

Pena v. Horan
A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive "approved" handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.

Gould v. Lipson
A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.

Cheeseman v. Polillo
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

 Ciolek v. New Jersey
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

Worman v. Healy
A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as "assault weapons" and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi
A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.

Culp v. Raoul
A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of  some states, in the 7th Circuit.

Wilson v. Cook County
A challenge to an on ban on common firearms described as "assault weapons" and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.

The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019.  Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.

Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as "assault weapons". One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.

In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San  Jose.

No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.

We should know the results on Monday,  4 May, 2020.

Update: No cases were granted a writ of certiorari. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

There is an obvious split on the Court. Four justices want to enforce the Second Amendment. Four justices want to gut it.

I think Roberts has become the swing vote, and won't commit. The other justices likely view him as unreliable because of the Obamacare decision.

[rktman]

WOW! LOL! For a second there you had me thinkin’ you were gonna be “In front of the Supreme Court”, not standing out front. LOL!

[ClearCase_guy]

What am I missing?

1) It takes four Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case (grant a writ of certiorari).
2) Four justices say they want to hear a case.
3) Update: No cases were granted a writ of certiorari.

[gibsonguy]

This is bad we needed to flip another rat seat before another 2a case it got to the SC. We barely won the last one. Roberts is going to look at those guys with AR’s strapped to their chests at the Mi capitol and think “we cannot allow this”.

[marktwain]

Four justices want to enforce the Second Amendment.

They could agree to grant a writ of Certiorari.

But, they want to enforce the Second Amendment, not gut it.

Four justices want to gut the amendment, probably most notably, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

They cannot stop a writ of certiorari, but if they can get a fifth justice to join them, they can gut the Second Amendment.

So, the four will not grant a writ of certiorari unless they are reasonably sure they can enforce the Second, not gut it.

They clearly have serious doubts about a fifth justice. Who would it be, if not John Roberts?

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks. I see the logic of that.

The way it was written made it sound like they needed A and they had A but nothing would happen because they didn’t have A. I was scratching my head.

[marktwain]

It was written before they refuse to grant a writ of certiorari.

It was assumed that they would not have moved 10 Second Amendment cases to conference, unless they were going to grant one or more of them a writ of certiorari.

Something happened in the conference to cause them not to grant a writ.

My suspicion is John Roberts said something like: "Let the people decide. Lets wait until after the next election."

[Reno89519]

This is all a result of getting justices that do not have guns or first hand knowledge of their private ownership.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

bkmk

[umgud]

So none of these 10 cases will now move ahead?

[dljordan]

How’s RBG doing? She going to vote from the toilet?

[marktwain]

So none of these 10 cases will now move ahead?

The ten cases are all back in limbo, now. They have not been refused a grant of certiorari, they have not been granted a writ. They are held, as is.

One positive thing is President Trump has been appointing more originalists and textualists to the lower courts. Even the 9th Circuit now has about 40% judges who were appointed by Republicans, which is only a slight indicator they may not be progressives.

The more judges President Trump appoints, the harder it gets to keep treating the Second Amendment as a second class right.

[pabianice]

Several years ago I got into a fight with my cousin’s husband who insisted that no one should be allowed to own a gun because if he did he would shoot some people he hated.

[dufekin]

We already decided the question of the Second Amendment in the aftermath of the election of 1790; we do not need another election unless Congress proposes to amend the Constitution to repeal or alter the second amendment.

Realistically, the justices apparently didn’t dismiss the cases; they just didn’t grant any such cases. Perhaps they considered hundreds of other cases, and the time for the meeting expired. Perhaps they’re too focused on the oral arguments of this week. Perhaps they’re debating whether to request some paperwork, or maybe they decided to review the paperwork already submitted more thoroughly so that they don’t get another malformed case like that of the New York City pistol club.

We just need to wait patiently. The justices probably will address the second amendment in the coming few years. And we need to reelect a Republican president lest the Democrats install another pro-death justice, who celebrates the deaths of not only millions of unborn Americans but also of ordinary American adults and children, whom criminals kill.

[marktwain]

Yes, well written.

We simply do not know what they decided in conference. It is a closely guarded secret.

The left hates the Second Amendment with a passion. It contradicts there basic assumptions about the nature of government and reality.