Man From U.N.C.L.E. gun: Any SBR cases?

[Bhobbs]

History would disagree.

I can easily see "In Common Use" cases being decided in Per Curium decisions so as not to waste time. That is exactly what happened in Caetano after the Heller decision.

The DOJ's oral arguments make it an even stronger possibility.

1 case is not a historical trend. In the 15 years since Heller, we?ve gained essentially nothing in terms of gun rights. Starting in January, carry rights in California will be more regulated than they were pre Bruen.

SCOTUS has a lot of options. They choose not to exercise any of them. SCOTUS won?t even intervene to stop laws meant specifically to undermine Bruen.

[SpudmanWP]

Why would SCOTUS treat the 9th any differently than other Circuits?

Go back and read the Caetano decision. It was a Per Curium decision (ie a ruling on just the briefings without any oral arguments) that overturned a state ban on stun guns.

The State tried three arguments:
1. Stun Guns were not ICU at the time of the 2nd.

This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding." 554 U. S., at 582.

2. They tried to claim it was both dangerous and unusual.

In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are "unusual" because they are "a thoroughly modern invention." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating "unusual" with "in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment," the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

3. Lastly, the State claimed that stun guns were not appropriate for military service (the Miller argument).

But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

Caetano starts on page 15:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

My main point is that just as Mark Smith pointed out in the above video, the legal principles have already been hashed out in Heller so the court in Caetano did not feel the need for oral arguments were needed. In fact, the likelihood of a Per Curium decision now is higher than it was in Caetano as there are more conservative Justices on the court now.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS won?t even intervene to stop laws meant specifically to undermine Bruen.

Don't confuse interlocutory intervention with the reversal of bad decisions.

[AlmostHeaven]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to both Cargill and Vullo. Range may come as soon as next month. People ought to realize that the tide has really started to turn against gun control, even if more slowly than the gun rights community deserves.

[SpudmanWP]

It's still exponentially faster than post-Heller decisions.

[Bhobbs]

Why would SCOTUS treat the 9th any differently than other Circuits?

Go back and read the Caetano decision. It was a Per Curium decision (ie a ruling on just the briefings without any oral arguments) that overturned a state ban on stun guns.

The State tried three arguments:
1. Stun Guns were not ICU at the time of the 2nd.



2. They tried to claim it was both dangerous and unusual.



3. Lastly, the State claimed that stun guns were not appropriate for military service (the Miller argument).



Caetano starts on page 15:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

My main point is that just as Mark Smith pointed out in the above video, the legal principles have already been hashed out in Heller so the court in Caetano did not feel the need for oral arguments were needed. In fact, the likelihood of a Per Curium decision now is higher than it was in Caetano as there are more conservative Justices on the court now.

I didn?t say anything about treating the 9th differently. In fact, the only circuit SCOTUS treats differently is the 5th because they keep involving themselves in cases where Bruen is actually applied properly.

There are multiple lawsuits against multiple laws specifically meant to undermine Bruen.

Bianchi and Duncan should have been per curium decisions. Both are common use cases. Instead, SCOTUS punted them.

Don't confuse interlocutory intervention with the reversal of bad decisions.

I?m not confusing anything. Allowing poor decisions to stand for 3-5 years only further damages Bruen. Those rulings will be used to further attack gun rights, while SCOTUS sits by and does nothing. Putting out a gun rights ruling every decade is not an effective strategy. It destroyed Heller and will destroy Bruen.

The bump stock and brace ban will not implicate the 2A as much as possible. They will specifically avoid the 2A in those cases. The rulings will be based on the APA, because it?s the easiest way to do it.

Rahimi will be a narrow ruling. It won?t move the needle one way or another because it?s a terrible case. I wouldn?t be surprised if Rahimi results in many cases being remanded, like they were post Bruen.

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS honors the process so don't confuse them not intervening without cause for them "letting" it happen.

[Bhobbs]

SCOTUS honors the process so don't confuse them not intervening without cause for them "letting" it happen.

Is it really honoring the process if they stand by the results of lower courts dishonoring the process?

[SpudmanWP]

You do understand what the word "process" means, right?

There are two ways to get a case in front of SCOTUS, interlocutory motions and appeals of decisions.

Intelocory motions are primarily used when the petitioner thinks that the lower court is violating the procedures and rules of the court. These are the kinds of motions that SCOTUS tends to take. They also tend to take motions where the government wants to maintain the status quo while the case proceeds. SCOTUS does not like to take motions where the issue is just the lower court's opinion on a ruling (PI, Summary Judgment, etc). Even given that, SCOTUS will sometimes deny cert but still give the lower court instructions on how to proceed. This is what the process is, the lower court completes the case to its end rather than interrupting the process.

In most of the Bruen-response bills, the issues revolve around sensitive places. One of the main reasons why SCOTUS has not intervened is that sensitive locations were not part of either Bruen or Heller so there is no case law (ie settled legal principles) to point to.