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

[OleCuss]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

My pipe dream hope is SCOTUS returning Duncan with a Pre Curiam decision.

After Viramontes is decided, depending on how the decision is worded I think a per curiam order for Duncan is possible. That might be as close as SCOTUS is willing to go to the bish slap which a certain honest judge indicated suggested needed to be administered.

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

My pipe dream hope is SCOTUS returning Duncan with a Pre Curiam decision.

[Silence Dogood]

The problem I see with Mark Smith's conclusions is sending the magazine decision back to the lower courts.

1. Such magazines have been banned in California since 2000. Since a generation is generally defined as between 20 - 30 years, I suspect the argument will be that they have not been in 'common use' for a generation.
2. Magazines are not, yet, 'settled' law and one only need look to the various suits going on across the country, including the DOJ's own suit in Colorado.
3. There is a Circuit Court split on such magazines and only SCOTUS can resolve such splits given...
4. That the lower courts already predisposed to supporting bans will continue their support and force SCOTUS to rule definitively.
5. Should it do so, then the question becomes what legislation states like California will pass as workarounds, forcing us back to the courts for another generation.

I'm not disagreeing with Smith that the strategy he suggest SCOTUS may use is wrong. What I'm indicting is that I'm no where near as confident that it will work. I'm not trying to be a Negative Nelly or a killjoy and I do recognize that I've been experiencing California for far too long.

It's possible that cases such as Duncan are being held as a specific incentive for the lower courts to comply. In other words, what SCOTUS may do is set up Duncan with this case, then go on to definitively rule that so-called 'large capacity' magazines are, in fact, protected for the very reasons Smith cites.

We'll see.

The projected exclusion of the magazine issue from any decision in this case is the most frustrating aspect of his conclusions for me too, for the same reasons, especially since although he has been wrong occasionally with his public predictions regarding SCOTUS, he is generally on point.

Presuming that he is correct and the issue will not be explicitly clarified in this decision, I’m hopeful that we will get a decision in this case that includes language which broadly supports the 2A in future cases, hopefully strong enough to preclude some of the games we have seen and are predicting (i.e. Viramontes response bills). Some of the amicus briefs specifically comment on the need for this and, as noted in the conversation, so has Judge VanDyke who the SCOTUS has, apparently, made note of.

But as you said, “we’ll see”. Only time will tell.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Great follow-up conversation between William and Mark. Almost an hour long but worth it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeseGUSD0Q4

The problem I see with Mark Smith's conclusions is sending the magazine decision back to the lower courts.

1. Such magazines have been banned in California since 2000. Since a generation is generally defined as between 20 - 30 years, I suspect the argument will be that they have not been in 'common use' for a generation.
2. Magazines are not, yet, 'settled' law and one only need look to the various suits going on across the country, including the DOJ's own suit in Colorado.
3. There is a Circuit Court split on such magazines and only SCOTUS can resolve such splits given...
4. That the lower courts already predisposed to supporting bans will continue their support and force SCOTUS to rule definitively.
5. Should it do so, then the question becomes what legislation states like California will pass as workarounds, forcing us back to the courts for another generation.

I'm not disagreeing with Smith that the strategy he suggest SCOTUS may use is wrong. What I'm indicting is that I'm no where near as confident that it will work. I'm not trying to be a Negative Nelly or a killjoy and I do recognize that I've been experiencing California for far too long.

It's possible that cases such as Duncan are being held as a specific incentive for the lower courts to comply. In other words, what SCOTUS may do is set up Duncan with this case, then go on to definitively rule that so-called 'large capacity' magazines are, in fact, protected for the very reasons Smith cites.

We'll see.

[Silence Dogood]

Great follow-up conversation between William and Mark. Almost an hour long but worth it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeseGUSD0Q4

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This amicus brief came from several members of the Senate, notably including Ted Cruz.

[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...

[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]

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...

[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.

[Gravelman]

That’s a great table of contents!

[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

[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]

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

[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.