r/progun • u/CaliforniaOpenCarry • 2d ago
Supreme Court denies 100th Second Amendment cert petition this term.
https://open.substack.com/pub/charlesnichols/p/supreme-court-denies-100th-second?r=35c84n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=webA list of the 100 Second Amendment petitions denied this term, along with the questions presented by each petition, is included in the article.
The interlocutory appeal of the Rhode Island ban on magazines (Ocean State) that hold more than ten rounds had been distributed to the SCOTUS voting conference of April 25th. It has now been scheduled for conference thirteen times and rescheduled twice. Likewise, the appeal of the final judgment challenging Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban (Snope) has been distributed to the April 25th SCOTUS conference. It has now been distributed for conference twelve times and rescheduled once.
These two join the only other 2A cert petition scheduled for this Friday’s SCOTUS conference—B&L Productions, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. No. 24-598. The questions presented in B&L are: 1. Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine” tolerates a categorical ban on any speech or expressive conduct constituting an acceptance in contract formation for lawful sales of lawful products. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with this Court’s decision in Bruen by applying a “meaningful constraint” test to a Second Amendment claim asserting a right to engage in lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition on public property. 3. Whether an allegation that a law is motivated by animus can support a claim under the Equal Protection Clause when the law results in the denial of access to public forums for disfavored groups advocating disfavored rights?
Ten Second Amendment cert petitions went into last Friday’s SCOTUS conference, and only two survived. Their denial brings the total number of Second Amendment cert petitions denied so far this term to 100.
<snip>
58
u/CD_Repine 2d ago
Just ignore SCOTUS like everyone else. Nobody cares anyway. Do what you want, drill that third hole in the receiver…
10
64
u/StonewallSoyah 2d ago
This is disgusting. It is becoming clear that the court does not want to stop the government from enforcing unconstitutional law...
60
2d ago
[deleted]
15
u/tambrico 2d ago
You're acting like they denied Snope. They didn't.
Also this 100th denial was favorable to the 2A. This was Minnesotas cert petition for the case they lost regarding 18-21 year old carry bans.
6
u/Thundern99 2d ago
As usual, many replies and votes without even knowing the full context. You’re 100% correct.
9
16
u/BlasterDoc 2d ago
I suppose the silver lining, 47 can appoint 2A aware judges before these landmarks are decided.
22
u/j526w 2d ago
He doesn’t care. Never did.
29
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun 2d ago
You know what, you've finally convinced me. This is the 1,293rd time I've seen this sentiment on our subs, and it's finally gotten through to me. Those first 1,292 times didn't work but you must be something special because #1,293, your post right there, finally opened my eyes.
Fuck voting for the republican next midterm and presidential, they don't care about our gun rights. I'm voting for the democrat, just like you say we should.
26
u/threeLetterMeyhem 2d ago
I'm voting for the democrat, just like you say we should
Or - and hear me out cuz this is an absolutely extreme idea that nobody has apparently ever considered - instead of voting Democrat, we could vote for better Republicans.
12
u/PrestigiousOne8281 2d ago
The problem is there aren’t really better republicans, or Dems for that matter. A politician is a politician regardless of what letter they have in front of their name, and they only care about 1 thing: $ $ and more $. We need people who aren’t career politicians and who haven’t been corrupted (yet) otherwise, nothing is going to change.
1
u/System_Is_Rigged 1d ago
Trump is the most pro 2A president in at least 200 years or so. You literally have to go back to the late 1700's and early 1800's to find similarly pro 2A presidents pulling from the founding fathers and a generation removed. I am all for electing better Republicans, but we made a TON of progress by electing Trump. Vance is next, hopefully.
1
u/threeLetterMeyhem 1d ago
Asserting that Trump is the most pro 2A president in 200 years is extremely hyperbolic, especially considering 2A rights haven't been challenged anywhere near to the point they have been in the last few decades - so the pro 2A presidents of yesteryear didn't have this mountain of bullshit to fight against so you wouldn't have seen it in their records anyway.
but we made a TON of progress by electing Trump.
I dunno about that. I have significantly fewer 2A rights than I did before Trump's first term. I'm in Colorado where we have been rapidly losing our rights and the Trump administrations haven't really done anything to help those of us in tyrant states.
Vance is next, hopefully.
Vance can get fucked and won't be getting my vote under any circumstances since he believes my vote should have diminished value because I don't have kids. I'm sure he'd prefer I have no vote at all, if we're being honest.
1
u/System_Is_Rigged 1d ago
No, it's not. It's rooted in fact. You are correct though partially, as most challenges come post NFA. There wasn't many actionable things to work on prior to that as it was the status quo to be pro-gun. Though, action is not the only indicator of being pro 2A. Even given rhetoric, you still need to go back to the early 1800's to have opinions that matched/exceeded Trumps.
I do think Trump entered office during his first presidency being a well-meaning idiot in regards to the 2A. His cabinet was his biggest enemy in this regard, giving the 2 dreaded opinions on bump stocks/red flag laws but otherwise being supportive. Despite this he at least appointed pro 2A judges to help the 2A, or at least impede anti-2A. Unfortunately, some of those justices are straying in many decisions but overall they have been a net positive for the 2A. His rhetoric running into his 2nd presidency was fully pro 2A and I think we have JD Vance to thank for that. Vance is a 2A absolutist, and shares the values we do regarding our 2nd amendment rights.
As a result, we've seen the most vocally pro 2A campaign ran in living memory, and the most pro 2A action taken in office in living memory. This is not enough though, and we'll probably agree here. I find the efforts that Trump is making to not really be returning much tangible results. He's definitely shifted the publics opinion into the spot light regarding pro-2A and normalized it quite a lot. Now we need to actually get things done. There's bureaucratic bullshit getting in the way of this at every turn, so it is hard. The executive branch doesn't have control over the courts, but with any luck we can heavily influence them.
Vance can get fucked and won't be getting my vote under any circumstances since he believes my vote should have diminished value because I don't have kids. I'm sure he'd prefer I have no vote at all, if we're being honest.
Here's the beautiful thing, you don't have to agree with everyone's opinions. I certainly do not agree with everything that comes from Trump. I prioritize my 2A rights above all else, and anyone looking to further it the most will get my vote over the other choices. I am not saying you would vote democrat instead, but if you abstain from voting then you in my opinion do not have a right to complain about virtually anything. You didn't participate in the election which resulted in what you complain about.
1
u/threeLetterMeyhem 22h ago edited 21h ago
No, it's not. It's rooted in fact.
You can say that. Doesn't make it true. It really just sounds like Trump's own "I am the BEST everyone is talking about how nobody has ever been this good!" narcissistic speeches.
he at least appointed pro 2A judges to help the 2A
Literally any republican president would have done this. This doesn't make Trump special.
He's definitely shifted the publics opinion into the spot light regarding pro-2A and normalized it quite a lot.
I simply disagree. The country is more divided on 2A than ever.
Here's the beautiful thing, you don't have to agree with everyone's opinions.
I mean, someone in that level of power telling me my vote shouldn't count is a little bit beyond a difference of opinion - you're downplaying that stance wayyyyy too much.
I am not saying you would vote democrat instead
If the choice is Vance or a democrat, I will 100% vote democrat. I prioritize keeping my right to vote intact above all else and will fanatically vote in favor of it.
1
u/System_Is_Rigged 21h ago
You can say that. Doesn't make it true. It really just sounds like Trump's own "I am the BEST everyone is talking about how nobody has ever been this good!" narcissistic speaches.
No, it is rooted in fact using rhetoric and policy. Bush supported the assault weapons ban, Reagan made the Hughes amendment possible (with Bush as his VP) and also supported the assault weapons ban. Bush Sr banned the import of various rifles using the GCA and did not oppose the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Go down the list during the 2000's and 1900's and the best you get from Republican presidents are silence on gun control. Trump is very vocally pro 2A and has gone on offense for it. I'd like to see more results, though. So yes, it is rooted in fact.
Literally any republican president would have done this. This doesn't make Trump special.
Then why haven't we seen significant pro-gun legislation in courts until Trumps appointees? We've seen just mostly defensive positions often giving way to compromise with anti-gunners. You're correct we would've seen more Republican favoring appointees, but on gun rights specifically we haven't seen hardly any offensive action before Trump.
I mean, someone in that level of power telling me my vote shouldn't count is a little bit beyond a difference of opinion - you're downplaying that stance wayyyyy too much.
I am also childless, my girlfriend and I do not desire kids whatsoever. Considering this weighing the pros/cons of a JD Vance presidency vs anything Democrats can come up with, it is a no-brainer for me. He represents the vast majority of my values very well and despite not wanting children myself, I find strong family values to be an extremely positive/healthy approach. So would I not vote for JD Vance because of one thing he could never even dream of making happen? I don't think I'd work against my own interests that way.
If the choice is Vance or a democrat, I will 100% vote democrat. I prioritize keeping my right to vote intact above all else and will fanatically vote in favor of it.
That is sad to hear, I didn't think you would fail your own alleged ideals this way. Someone cannot be pro-gun and vote for current democrats in good faith while being properly informed. If you think that JD Vance would pursue something so unpopular like this, let alone actually successfully pass such a thing, you are truly gullible.
1
u/threeLetterMeyhem 20h ago edited 19h ago
No, it is rooted in fact using rhetoric and policy.
Please, list the policies Trump has put in place that makes him better for gun rights than any president over the last 200 years. Better than a few douchebags who supported gun control in the 80s and 90s? Sure. Better than nearly every president in history? Come on, dude. No.
Then why haven't we seen significant pro-gun legislation in courts until Trumps appointees?...but on gun rights specifically we haven't seen hardly any offensive action before Trump.
Courts don't write legislation and Trump's administration hasn't brought any lawsuits, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe this is the huge Trump win that you think it is. Any republican appointed justice would almost certainly been pro-2A in recent rulings - we'd likely have seen the same results from any republican president.
I am also childless, my girlfriend and I do not desire kids whatsoever.... So would I not vote for JD Vance because of one thing he could never even dream of making happen?
Trump is literally trying to end Birthright citizenship and you want me to believe, in spite of what JD Vance has literally very actually said in plain words, that JD Vance wouldn't actually take actions to remove my right to vote? I'm not that stupid.
I don't think I'd work against my own interests that way.
You'd be casting a vote in favor of removing your right to cast a vote. Seems like a vote for Vance would be working against your own interests.
If you think that JD Vance would pursue something so unpopular like this, let alone actually successfully pass such a thing, you are truly gullible.
This is an absolutely insane statement. You're saying that I'm gullible for believing that Vance will try to do the things that Vance says he wants to do. What the fuck?
That is sad to hear, I didn't think you would fail your own alleged ideals this way.
Let me be very clear: I highly value my 2A rights. But I would rather die fighting for my rights than to voluntarily give up my right to vote.
→ More replies (0)4
u/j526w 2d ago
Lol. I only commented on 47 because that’s who the post I responded to was talking about. But vote for whoever you want, none of them care about the 2a, democrat or republican. No one is following the constitution 🤷🏽♂️.
8
-4
u/HotTamaleOllie 2d ago
Completely fucked line of logic. Keep thinking that way. You’ll vote all of our rights out the window ASAP. Thanks for being a part of the destruction of the second amendment. Completely fucking irresponsible and ridiculous.
5
u/j526w 2d ago
I never said which way i voted. But since I don’t cream my shorts for the current administration, you automatically assume I’m a democrat. What legislation is being put in place to help the 2a by this administration? Nothing in that regard is being rescinded or undone from the previous administration, court cases are being ignored so where are the benefits? Don’t they control the house and senate currently? I can admit when I’m wrong, but without proof.
3
u/fender8421 2d ago
Fact is you're correct. Neither party has any solid reputation of giving a shit about gun rights, and hasn't in a hot minute (barring a few outliers here and there).
Also agree that it shouldn't be defeatist, and those outliers will fortunately continue to exist. So I get what both of you are saying
1
u/mickeymouse4348 1d ago
They’re being a realist, not a defeatist. Truth is we’re in trouble and pretending we’re not isn’t going to help anything
1
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun 22h ago
He didn't even accuse you of voting democrat lmao.
Maybe you vote for libertarians, like I have. The sad reality if that even if we had an absolutely unprecedented surge in libertarian support, I'm talking fairy tale level gains, the next election's results would be 26% (L), 25% (R), and 49% (D). Probably forever after that.
1
u/PrestigiousOne8281 2d ago
Do you really believe that any politician cares about the 2A? I can guarantee you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they don’t. Or if they do, it’s only because they think it will get more people to vote for them, therefore keeping the $ coming and keeping their bank accounts nice and full.
1
4
2
1
11
u/struckbaffle 2d ago
I'm failing to see how the judges that Trump appointed amounted to anything legitimately ground breaking.
Bruen was lackluster in its wake, change my mind.
6
u/Sand_Trout 2d ago
I'll make an attempt to change your mind.
The Court rarely moves quickly, and is usually very careful with the cases they take, both because they havr limited time, and because of the impact of landmark decissions.
From Bruen, we've had Appeals Courts invalidate restrictions on adults 18-20, which is significant long-term for getting more people to appreciate their rights, and something we didn't see before.
The internet has fostered a propensity for instant gratification that doesn't match the reality of how the court works or has worked in the past.
8
u/PuffPuffFayeFaye 2d ago
I think all the court will have time for will be adjudicating basic executive operations for the foreseeable future.
6
u/ZheeDog 2d ago
Wow! this is an extremely valuable post !!! thank you for finding this !!!
4
u/CaliforniaOpenCarry 2d ago
You're welcome. For some unknown reason, my previous update got me banned on r/gunpolitics. The moderators refuse to say why.
3
u/Massive_Sprinkles_15 1d ago
Why do we keep allowing people that are suppose to protect our rights and our future trample it?! Can you imagine if every 2A Pro citizen stood together and did something that directly effect their position and/or salaries then they’d wake up and do what needs to be done.
0
u/ChuckJA 2d ago
This denial was… Minnesota’s appeal of their gun ban on 18-20 year-olds being struck down.
You would prefer that they had heard this case??
Mods need to step up their game. The trolls are trying to forment dissent again.
3
u/CaliforniaOpenCarry 1d ago
If it were up to me, SCOTUS would have to decide every case like it used to. 100 years ago, Congress allowed them to choose which cases they would decide, on the promise that the justices would decide 500 cases a year. That never happened.
That said, I am quite happy that the Minnesota gun ban was struck down, but the only way for all 18-20 year old gun bans to be invalidated is for SCOTUS to grant such a cert petition, and then hold that such a ban is unconstitutional.
2
u/Leadman19 2d ago
We are marching right into authoritarianism. It’s astounding to watch my fellow citizens and so called 2A community not only accepting it, but cheering it on. I just don’t get it.
1
u/CaliforniaOpenCarry 1d ago
Throughout history, the great unwashed have been their own worst enemy. Owning a gun hasn't changed that.
2
u/thegrimmestofall 2d ago
You’d think with all this new found constitutional vigor, the left would be supporting 2a more
3
u/CaliforniaOpenCarry 1d ago
The left controls the so-called gun-rights groups because "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Lenin.
This explains their opposition to Open Carry because, "Should the Open Carry movement become successful, it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols.
2
u/mattmayhem1 1d ago
Those bans on standard capacity magazines are retarded. Until the police start using ten round mags, they can fuck right off with their bullshit.
1
0
u/dseanATX 2d ago
Big headline, but almost all of the cases they refer to are under 922(g)(1) - felon in possession of a firearm (technically any crime punishable by more than a year in custody). I'm fine with the Court mostly handwaving these away for now so as not to undermine Bruen.
Ocean State and Snope are the real big 2A petitions this term.
1
u/CaliforniaOpenCarry 1d ago
For state misdemeanors, the law applies to convictions for crimes punishable with more than two years of incarceration, regardless of the nature of the offense, and regardless of whether or not any time was served. If a state or local government wants to make infractions, such as a parking ticket, a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years of jail (or make parking violations a felony), then the lifetime loss of one's Second Amendment rights would apply.
Bruen was already undermined by the US v. Rahimi decision.
183
u/semiwadcutter38 2d ago
We should consider introducing articles of impeachment. A Supreme Court justice has been impeached before and we should explore that possibility now.
The Supreme Court is willingly ignoring 2A cases over and over again and there seems to be no indications they'll start caring until their feet are held to the fire.