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

[Sgt Raven]

Mark Smith on his YouTube "Four Boxes Diner" channel pointed out something which may explain why the two AR-15 cases were consolidated and given cert.

The reason is that if you combine the two cases then if a state got smart and rather than have a strong ruling against states banning semi-automatic rifles they could repeal the law and moot the case. Then the next day they can pass a slightly tweaked law and it could be years before the SCOTUS addressed the issue. It is much more difficult for two states to coordinate doing that together and politically it doesn't work if one state moots when the other didn't.

So we have a consolidated case which likely not be mooted.

I think that doing AR-15 bans makes it easier to rule broadly/effectively than would be the case with the magazine bans. But it may also be that the magazine bans would be more difficult to consolidate?

Not just that. One or both cases have Monetary Damages in the Suit. Changing or repealing the law does not Moot the Monetary Damages of the Suit.

[riderr]

Not just that. One or both cases have Monetary Damages in the Suit. Changing or repealing the law does not Moot the Monetary Damages of the Suit.

I really hope for the solid sound opinion this time around. I am more concerned about the soft language which may be inserted into the opinion in order to get Barrett and/or Roberts on-board.

[Silence Dogood]

I really hope for the solid sound opinion this time around. I am more concerned about the soft language which may be inserted into the opinion in order to get Barrett and/or Roberts on-board.

Agreed. If I understood Mark Smith correctly in the video I posted (#58), the best result we can hope for is a 5-4 decision (probably with Barrett, not Roberts) that includes strong language which bolsters future 2A jurisprudence. The worst case scenario, which is what Smith predicts will be the outcome, is language soft enough to garner a 9-0 majority that will undoubtedly have 2A-limiting concurrences/ partial dissents from the liberal justices.

As recently noted in the Duncan thread, history shows that the 9CA will play all the games they can with that case when it gets GVR’d so the majority opinion in Viramontes/ Grant really needs to be clear/ strong/ blunt enough to preclude any anti-2A shenanigans.

[Chewy65]

The need for strong language to deter mootness games is real. I had a state change the statute I was challenging at the district court level, but when a motiion to dismiss was brought for mootness the judge was going to permit my case to proceed in part. Very different, I know. There the statute at issue was mootied by a statute that continued some of the challenged issues while the case was still before the court. Here, its what if the statute is replaced after a case is no longer at SCOTUS. FWIW, those are my thouights but I wasn'at an appellate specialist.

[Silence Dogood]

Opening briefs are filed tomorrow. FPC founder and president sent this letter to members:
IMG_5749.jpg
IMG_5750.jpg
IMG_5751.jpg

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/2093146239328190894

[Silence Dogood]

Opening brief from the petitioners:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422409/20260828162156469_25-238%2025-566%20Brief%20of%20the%20Petitioners.pdf

[Silence Dogood]

Amicus brief filed by NAGR and joined by Texas Gun Rights:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422885/20260903104625941_25-238_25-566%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

VP Hannah Hill states on X that their hope for the decision, and their goal with this brief being to provide support for such a decision, is one that is far reaching in its scope such that it supports future 2A wins, not merely a win against AWBs. From my read, it looks mostly to support the quenching of magazine and other hardware bans.
These screenshots of the index should whet your appetites:
IMG_5843.jpg
IMG_5844.jpg
IMG_5845.jpg
IMG_5847.jpg

[Gravelman]

That’s a great table of contents!

[abinsinia]

There's one Amicus where they argue that "dangerous and unusual" isn't for the weapon, but for it's usage. i.e. if you carry it, or use it, in a dangerous and unusual way.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Now we can mark our calendars.

Court announces cases it will hear in December, including challenges to the constitutionality of bans on AR-15s

The Supreme Court will hear a pair of challenges to the constitutionality of bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles on Dec. 2. The oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, which has been consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, headline the December argument calendar, which was released on Friday afternoon. Other highlights of the December argument session include cases involving the rights of parents to bring a lawsuit challenging a state law on care for runaway teens and Arizona election laws.

The justices will hear seven separate arguments during the six days of the December argument session, which runs from Monday, Nov. 30, until Wednesday, Dec. 2, and then again from Monday, Dec. 7, until Wednesday, Dec. 9.

Cutberto Viramontes filed the challenge to the ban on semiautomatic rifles in Cook County, Illinois, while gun owners and gun-rights groups challenged a similar law that Connecticut passed in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. In both cases, the lower courts upheld the bans against arguments that they violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms, prompting the challengers to come to the Supreme Court in 2025. After repeatedly considering the cases at their private conferences, the justices finally agreed on June 30 to weigh in...

Viramontes v. Cook County (consolidated with Grant v. Higgins) (Dec. 2): Whether bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms...

[Silence Dogood]

Very interesting amicus brief filed by RMGO 04SEP that directly addresses some of the response bills we can expect states like CA to try passing after the SCOTUS decides this case, based on what Colorado has already done and what we saw post-Bruen. Here is a link to the brief and a screenshot of the table of contents to whet your appetites:
IMG_5898.jpg

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423029/20260904110238344_25-238_25-566%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

[TrappedinCalifornia]

CRPA filed an amicus brief and Chuck Michel discusses it...

The brief was filed 4 September and can be found... Here.

This is the key and what is being discussed in the video...

...This Court’s Second Amendment decisions have produced a troubling, recurring pattern. After Heller confirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, lower courts spent more than a decade applying interestbalancing tests to uphold virtually every challenged gun law. After Bruen jettisoned those tests, some governments refused to accept the result. Instead, they enacted new regulatory regimes designed to restrict the very rights the Court had just recognized.

If this Court holds that AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected Arms but does not address the regulatory frameworks waiting in the wings, the government will treat the holding as an invitation to replace categorical bans with oppressive regulatory regimes designed to achieve the same result.

The question is not whether governments will attempt to evade the Court’s decision; it is whether this Court deny them the tools to succeed as a part of its decision to uphold the Second Amendment...