SCOTUS grants cert in Viramontes v. Cook County_ and _Grant v. Higgins.

[curtisfong]

Glock switches are illegal. However, certain states have now caused Glock to go back and redesign the firearms so as to eliminate their ability to accept 'Glock switches.' Thus, while ownership of a certain iteration isn't necessarily illegal, in effect, the laws have forced the manufacturer to redesign the firearm so as to make it marketable.

The problem is that pretty much any switch design can be re-engineered (with enough time and effort) to work with any "new" configuration. It's an arms race with no end, except for a completely idiotic design that is *dedicated* to making switches impossible or economically infeasible, likely at the cost of simplicity, manufacturing ease, and even worse, safety.

[Brown Rock]

This is exactly the main argument point. AR15 are legal practically everywhere, except a few jurisdictions. However, in many places they are legal only if some stupid safety features are applied. You can't tell AR-15 are illegal in California completely. But the AR-15 in the original manufacturer design is illegal in CA. That's what I want to stress out. If SCOTUS does not incorporate the language, protecting the AR-15 original design, CA will claim their AWB is compliant with the ruling.

Dang, sounds like we're still gonna be screwed here.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This is exactly the main argument point. AR15 are legal practically everywhere, except a few jurisdictions. However, in many places they are legal only if some stupid safety features are applied. You can't tell AR-15 are illegal in California completely. But the AR-15 in the original manufacturer design is illegal in CA. That's what I want to stress out. If SCOTUS does not incorporate the language, protecting the AR-15 original design, CA will claim their AWB is compliant with the ruling. Pretty much same, what Newsom said about the recent women's sports case.
Well, the mere fact all men have a penis does not make them rapists. There is no need in the biological men specie redesign. It's not the state's job to demand such.

I am not saying I have a perfect solution. However, I am simply stating how I believe SCOTUS may effectively reinstate 2A and force the blue state to comply.

Again, you're not necessarily portraying things with an accuracy which speaks to the issue. 'Practically legal everywhere' is true, but only from a certain persepective. Why do I say that?

Which States Have Assault Weapons Bans?

That piece includes a map which the system here won't allow me to post since the extension evidently doesn't match; but, this seems like the same one, despite the one in the article being 'assault weapons' ban and this one being 'magazine restrictions'...

isizcpcrr3re1.jpg
That map would seem to bolster your argument. However, drill down a bit and add together how many people in the U.S. are under some form of so-called 'assault weapons' restriction/ban. In California alone, there are 39.5 million. Now, add New York's 20 million residents. Heck. Even New Jersey has 9.55 million. In short, just those three states brings the count to just over 69 million. Now, add in the rest and you come to the realization that approximately 126,812,544. Given that the U.S. population is estimated at 349 million, that means 36.34%, over 1/3, are under some form of restriction/ban.

Those numbers seem counterintuitive to the idea that AR-15's are legal practically everywhere. I suppose that is precisely the reason so many lawsuits have been filed.

[splithoof]

CA passes bills that it knows are currently unconstitutional, on the belief, or prayer, that if the case appears in front of SCOTUS, the make-up of the court will have a liberal majority.

They also use that as a strategy to delay exercise of rights, knowing that it works very well. Look at Duncan; we have been living under that crap for over a decade…while we “let the courts figure it out”.

[natman]

maybe even the 9th Circus will decide that they don't want to look that stupid.

Looking stupid has never stopped them before.

[Chewy65]

The 7th Circuit just uphelld Illinois law banning AR-15 type rifles and 30 round magazines.See Barnett v. Raoul.

[splithoof]

Looking stupid has never stopped them before.

With such a long history of being overruled and literally famous for celebrating the lives of murderous criminals, judges like what we are accustomed to (Bird, Reynoso, Grodin) actually take pride in standing out. Unfortunately, they are not standing out in support of our constitution.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

They also use that as a strategy to delay exercise of rights, knowing that it works very well. Look at Duncan; we have been living under that crap for over a decade…while we “let the courts figure it out”.

As a conservatives/Conservatives constitute a notable minority in California, what's the alternative to 'letting the court figure it out?'

We sure ain't gonna win via the voting booth any time soon.

[splithoof]

As a conservatives/Conservatives constitute a notable minority in California, what's the alternative to 'letting the court figure it out?'

We sure ain't gonna win via the voting booth any time soon.

True, in California (and I suspect in other blue states as well) voting likely won’t make much difference. IMO, our country is overdue for a great reset. How that happens is for another thread.

[OleCuss]

The 7th Circuit just uphelld Illinois law banning AR-15 type rifles and 30 round magazines.See Barnett v. Raoul.

A disgusting outcome but it might actually help nationally. SCOTUS isn't going to hear the case during the next session (or maybe ever) but you can bet some clerks are going to be looking at the decision and there's a decent chance the court makes sure that their ruling in Viramontes touches sufficiently on what Illinois is doing. Barnett should be expected to request cert and I suspect that after Viramontes gets decided Barnett gets either GVR'ed or a per curiam ruling.

Net effect is that the 7th Circus is doing as poorly as we expect but it just might result in a better result from Viramontes? But I'm no lawyer and I doubt even the SCOTUS knows just exactly how it will go.

[BAJ475]

A disgusting outcome but it might actually help nationally. SCOTUS isn't going to hear the case during the next session (or maybe ever) but you can bet some clerks are going to be looking at the decision and there's a decent chance the court makes sure that their ruling in Viramontes touches sufficiently on what Illinois is doing. Barnett should be expected to request cert and I suspect that after Viramontes gets decided Barnett gets either GVR'ed or a per curiam ruling.

Net effect is that the 7th Circus is doing as poorly as we expect but it just might result in a better result from Viramontes? But I'm no lawyer and I doubt even the SCOTUS knows just exactly how it will go.

I'm for GVR with directions find for the plaintiffs with costs and attorney fees.

[Chewy65]

Major appeals court declares New Jersey AR-15 ban unconstitutional in landmark Second Amendment ruling

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/major-appeals-court-declares-new-jersey-ar-15-ban-unconstitutional-landmark-second-amendment-ruling

[Silence Dogood]

In this interesting brief conversation (23min.) between attorneys Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) and William Kirk (Washington Gun Law), Smith shares some interesting commentary on this upcoming case, SCOTUS justices, and even a prediction for the outcome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkiiccjKyII

If I understood him correctly:
-he thinks we will definitely see AWBs overturned
-he does not think magazine bans will be included in the scope of this opinion
-he elaborates on the scope of both the broad and narrow rulings we may see, depending on how many justices sign on to the majority opinion
-he talks about Roberts and ACB
-he predicts (conservatively, if I am correctly reading between the lines) that we will see this case decided in a 9-0 decision

[dawgcasa]

Looking stupid has never stopped them before.

Anti 2A rights Zealots sitting on these Circuit Courts don’t worry about looking stupid when they believe they are fighting a mighty battle for a worthy cause. They believe that Heller was so egregiously wrong in ‘creating’ an individual right to keep and bear arms that they view this as an almost religious mission to “protect the public” from the harms of such a “unusually dangerous” right. They first attempted to “interest balance” the 2A out of existence, by adopting a DISSENT as their standard. When that was foreclosed by Bruen, they started taking a “more nuanced” approach to interpreting history and uniquely local ordinances as national precedences. As that approach has faltered, they’ve now pivoted to declaring the challenged arms aren’t arms at all, but either mere ‘accessories’ or “unusually dangerous”. This is why Viramontes needs to build on the language in Wolford that will foreclose attempts to ‘smuggle’ the historical analysis into Step 1 of Bruen’s test, and make it clear that the semantical reading of “both dangerous and unusual” is NOT functionally equivalent to “unusually dangerous”. Viramontes needs to shut down once and for all these dishonest and undermining attempts by liberal Circuits to use backdoors to eviscerate Heller.

[curtisfong]

make it clear that the semantical reading of “both dangerous and unusual” is NOT functionally equivalent to “unusually dangerous”.

Exactly this. I have no idea why courts are getting away with this.