https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html

Here we go lads!

What this means:

• SCOTUS will conference on this case December 13th.
• The earliest we will hear on if they take the case is December 16th
• Given some justices have already expressly said they want to hear it we could see that, but I doubt it would be granted so quickly.
• There is NO set timeline for them to decide on cert
• Most cases get relisted at least once, to give SCOTUS more time to discuss and decide on cert
• Generally speaking, the more times after twice it gets relisted, the lower the chance of granting. But that is a general trend not a hard rule.

What do we do now?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-203/332725/20241125152005669_130714%20brief.pdf

Has not been distributed for conference yet but the plaintiffs make great claims for why cert should be granted.

It's nothing you have not heard before so I will share the 500 ft overview. Feel free to read deeper in the PDF if you care about the legalese. Or if you have questions I'll answer as able (IANAL)

1. There is a long-running and intractable

dispute in the lower courts over whether the Second Amendment allows the government to ban arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens. 2. Heller clearly teaches that arms in common use by law-abiding citizens cannot be banned. 3. This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve this dispute.

Tl;DR the lower courts are cocking about, willfully and intentionally misapplying or even failing to apply at all, the standard from Heller as affirmed in Bruen. And they will not stop until SCOTUS forces them to. Enough is enough, they have proven incapable or unwilling to follow the decisions of SCOTUS and so SCOTUS should grant cert and set the law straight.

I wholeheartedly agree.

#Distributed for Conference December 13th

Rhode v. Bonta (9th Circuit, CA ammo background checks): Notice of Oral Argument on Wednesday, December 4, 2024 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA.

Panel: Jay Bybee, Sandra Ikuta, Bridget Bade

GWB (anti-gun), GWB (pro-gun), and Trump.

US v. Peterson (5th Circuit, NFA as applied to suppressors, interest balancing): CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Wednesday, 12/04/2024 in New Orleans in the En Banc Courtroom -- AM session.

Panel: Patrick Higginbotham, Jennifer Elrod, Leslie H. Southwick

Reagan (anti-gun), GWB (pro-gun), and GWB (anti-gun).

What a bad draw for the criminal case.

Do what you will with this information. https://youtu.be/MOVJbDgMibc?feature=shared

Did scotus take the Maryland awb case?

I live in Massachusetts and am patiently waiting as best as possible for Snope to (hopefully)make it to Scotus as our rights are very, very infringed on. They used Bruen to create even worse laws. I am seeing a lot of posts on Twitter from Democrats in the judiciary committee, trying to move judges quickly into Scotus. Is this a concern? Can they potentially flip the court?

I can see advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is simply no more ATF, but the disadvantage is the NFA and GCA are still in place, and another administration could just move enforcement to some other agency.

Musk or Ramaswamy have mentioned gutting it, and I can only hope.

Been seeing alot of rumors that Brandon Herrera could be the head of the ATF. Anyone know if there’s any truth to it? And what do you think would happen? Would we see an end to suppressors being an nfa item? Faster wait times? End of the pistol brace ruling?

Today it’s basically staffed by a who’s-who of gun control lobbyist, at tax payer expense. When trump takes office, should he:

1. Shut it down. Maybe do a public data dump of everything they were doing/saying/planning.

2. Restaff it. It’s new directive would be [fill it it]. Like becoming an extension of the CMP. Or promote general safety education

3. Something else? Staff it with members from groups like the FPC?

Docket listing

Actual Response - PDF Warning

• What's Next?

This case will be distributed for conference to the 9 justices, and listed for conference. They will review the case, and if 4 of them want to hear it, it will be added to the docket.

• When can we expect an update?

There's no hard rule. It will likely take a few weeks, SCOTUS gets THOUSANDS of cert petitions. The soonest I would expect to hear is December before the Holiday recess. But it could be longer. Generally the more times it gets re-listed the less likely it is they take it.

• What if cert is granted?

There's 2 options. First GVR. Grant-Vacate-Remand. SCOTUS says "You did it wrong, try again, here's some guidance". I do not expect a GVR. This case has already been GVR'd and the 4th circuit came to the same answer.
Option 2: SCOTUS takes the case and schedules oral arguments.

• Will they take it?

We don't know. We know we have 3 justices who have already openly said they want to take it (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch). Kavanaugh as a circuit judge ruled against an AWB but was in the dissent on the panel. If cert is denied it (likely) means Roberts AND Barrett cannot be counted on.

However, if I had to place a Taco bet, I'd say they take it up. This is the mostly hotly debated 2A question right now. Applies to multiple states, and we have had the rare opinion of justices wanting to hear it on a preliminary basis.

In addition the defendants asked for a 30 day extension to file, SCOTUS gave them 19 days. This indicated SCOTUS wants to "move it along". It also delayed the motion to file to 1 week after the US election, convenient timing when Roberts is obsessed with optics and when the Dems were not-so-subtly threatening court packing.

• What does the Maryland response actually say?

In summary:

Assault Weapons are not protected under the 2A, even if they are they are not in common use, even if they are there is a history and tradition of banning them, even if there isn't there is no circuit split so it's not a big deal and SCOTUS should deny cert.

I won't go into exact detail, it's stuff you've heard from the anti-2A crowd before. Read the PDF if you want it. Otherwise it's, well...tl;dr

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/port-st-lucie-firearms-dealer-charged-failing-keep-proper-records-sales

Saw someone saying all three suck but wanted to get 2nd opinions. Can't find anything bad that Thune's voted for but I'm sure there's something. Coryn supported the BSCA in 2022. And Rick Scott can go fuck himself. Anything else?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rapper-lil-zay-osama-gets-234800218.html

Technically it can all be reversed per the next presidency but would it be allowed in light of Bruen?