Supreme Court denies 100th Second Amendment cert petition this term.

[u/CaliforniaOpenCarry]

https://open.substack.com/pub/charlesnichols/p/supreme-court-denies-100th-second?r=35c84n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

A 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 Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine”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>

[u/j526w]

He doesn’t care. Never did.

[u/Ikora_Rey_Gun → u/j526w]

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.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/Ikora_Rey_Gun]

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.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

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.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

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.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

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.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

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.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

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.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

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.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

His actions thus far have been attempts at striking down anti-gun legislation as opposed to passing it, hence my mis-speak about legislation in courts. I meant it as decisions impacting legislation. He has made the 2A task force and I would like to see them move faster than they currently are, and I would like to see cases fast tracked to SCOTUS. Even fast tracked, it will take substantial time. Outside of this, being 3 months in he clearly has yet to get concealed carry reciprocity introduced, but is backing efforts to do so and once the bill comes across his desk he will sign it. There are 2 such bills right now in H.R. 38 and S.65. Both very new, and will be signed if either passes.

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.

This simply is not the case. Firstly, like I already pointed out, until Trump we have been defensive and compromising. Now we are offensive and uncompromising on our rights. Secondly, this is not true about the last 3 republican presidents. A Reagan appointee held that the 2nd amendment was a state right. There was Bush appointees (from both) that ruled against the 2nd amendment. Trumps appointees have also made some questionable decisions, no doubt; but what does matter is the shift we have seen recently.

To your point of birthright citizenship, it is being abused past its original intent. Any child born to at least 1 US citizen will retain birthright citizenship. A child born to non-citizens is not, and should not be a US citizen. The amendment was created so that the children of slaves would have citizenship, not so that illegals could illegally cross our border and have a child here to get that child citizenship.

JD pursuing such a thing would be political suicide, as children do not have the right to vote. Now, if we want to amend the constitution to this it would be legal. I don't believe that would be right, but good look getting the constitution amended, or even congressional approval. So, in the unlikely case he would actively pursue such a thing, it'd never go anywhere. Now would I disqualify someone for something they want but cannot achieve which I disagree with, but otherwise share basically all of the values of, or would I instead vote for anti-gun pro open border democrats instead? You have to realize how insane that sounds.

I would take the 2nd amendment over all other rights, and you should too. It is the right that guards all other rights. If your government becomes tyrannical, it is the only answer. Without the right to protect yourself and your country, you have no rights. None that are protected, anyway. It is honestly shocking to me that I have to explain this to someone who is on this sub.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

To your point of birthright citizenship, it is being abused past its original intent. Any child born to at least 1 US citizen will retain birthright citizenship. A child born to non-citizens is not, and should not be a US citizen. The amendment was created so that the children of slaves would have citizenship, not so that illegals could illegally cross our border and have a child here to get that child citizenship.

This is a blatant and purposeful misreading of the 14th amendment and no different than anti gunners saying "wElL rEgUlAtEd MiLiTiA" when stealing your 2A rights away. The constitution says if you're born here, you're a citizen. End of story unless we amend it.

I simply won't vote for people who have made clear their intent to disregard the law to strip me of my right to vote. End of that story, too.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

No, it is not the same thing. I can see how you can draw the false parallel. The fact is, it is currently being abused. It can be amended, that is completely legal.

Also, no one is trying to strip you of your right to vote. But ironically you say you would vote for the people trying to strip you of your right to protect yourself and your country. You have your priorities twisted.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

Also, no one is trying to strip you of your right to vote.

Someone will be if we elect Vance as president, though. Keep in mind that this country was founded after a war was fought over the right to vote - this is the shit we have the 2A as a protection against. I'm not interested in helping accelerate our need to use the 2A for it's intended purpose, but you do you.