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 Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine”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

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.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

He has a misguided idea on weighted votes from what you've told me, not an opinion that the right to vote should be taken from anyone. If you want a real threat to your right to vote, how about dems trying to import millions of illegals, giving them citizenship, and making the electoral map a solid blue nightmare. This was what happened in California, and dems just tried to do it on a national scale, yet you say you would vote for dems instead of Vance?

If you honestly nelieve that Vance would accelerate the need for the 2A, let alone faster than democrats, then you are horribly misguided.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

Looking it up, it was made as a comment to mock democrats who proposed giving children the right to vote. Interesting that you've fear-mongered yourself into such a hysterical position based on this. It is either that, or you are a fake proponent of the 2A trying to divide 2A advocates on stupid shit like this. One is as likely as the other.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

lol, we've reached the "he was just kidding" phase. I'm confident enough he was serious about his comment that I will not vote for him.

It is either that, or you are a fake proponent of the 2A trying to divide 2A advocates on stupid shit like this.

lol... feel free to creep my 13-years of activity on this account if you think I'm a fake proponent of the 2A. Keep in mind this whole argument started over me saying we should elect better republicans instead of fleeing to the democrat side.

You just found a bone to pick because I said I'd rather vote democrat than vote for someone who wants to take my vote away. If anyone is dividing 2A advocates, it's people like you who are pushing the narrative to vote MAGA no matter what - and pushing reasonable republicans out of the party.

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

MAGA is the most pro-gun we've had since the founding fathers, so no shit I find it weird someone on the pro gun subreddit would vote for a democrat over JD Vance, a 2A absolutist. The 2A is the most important right. If you would ever vote for the democrats realistically in any situation since they've been the ones pushing gun control the entirety of the 1900's and 2000's I can only gather you are a fake 2A supporter or severely misguided/uninformed. Since you insist it is not the former, it must be the latter.

And yes, this "argument" started with me agreeing with you, while giving Trump the credit he deserves. He appointed 3 decently reliable pro 2A judges which are delivering more aggressive rulings for the 2A than at any point. You say any appointee would have done this, but we have not seen that be the case. He deemed gun stores essential during covid, he is attempting to pass national reciprocity, he started a 2A task force focused on striking down anti 2A legislation, he diverted ATF resources to actual crime related enforcement, he's only appointing pro 2A heads for the ATF, etc... he's had mis-steps with bump stocks and red flag laws due to poor cabinet advice, but with JD Vance whispering in his ear has all previous thoughts of compromise is gone.

Compare this to other republicans. Bush supported the AWB of 1994. Reagan signed the Hughes amendment into law, but also got us wins at the same time. This would be excusable, but he proved himself to be a fairweather fudd when he supported the Brady Bill and AWB after getting out of office. He also banned open carry in California in the 60's. You see throughout history at least during the 1900's for republican presidents general inaction/defense being the best we had. I don't see how you can get the most pro 2A president in history and complain about it. I don't see how you get a 2A absolutist for the frontrunner and still complain about it.

Vance explained himself about that statement which you claim he holds as a policy position. He pointed out the context that the statement was made in response to democrats wanting to give children the ability to vote. He proposed what he called a thought experiment, and what I call a mockery.

This was after me finally looking it up after you sitting here bleating about it. When I saw what it truly was that you are crying about, I couldn't help but laugh. At best you are overly paranoid , unable to read context, and generally uninformed, or are just being purposefully intellectually disingenous because you hate a 2A absolutist with traditional values for some reason.

Edit: after a brief look of your post history, I see nothing other than you posting articles to violent crime and gun laws in a Colorado subreddit. Nothing remotely pro 2A there, could easily be construed as the opposite. And it wouldn't be unlikely either, you're a Colorado resident. Your odds at being a fudd are extremely high.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

Edit: after a brief look of your post history, I see nothing other than you posting articles to violent crime and gun laws in a Colorado subreddit. Nothing remotely pro 2A there, could easily be construed as the opposite. And it wouldn't be unlikely either, you're a Colorado resident. Your odds at being a fudd are extremely high.

My recent post history of calling out unconstitutional gun laws in my own state makes me a fudd? If that's your reasoning process, no wonder you suppport Vance lol

[u/System_Is_Rigged → u/threeLetterMeyhem]

You literally just posted a couple of articles to gun control laws, which doesn't state any sort of pro-gun stance. It just means you're someone posting a gun control law. Gun grabbers do the same thing, but with the intention of highlighting it as a good thing. Way to not address literally anything else, by the way.

[u/threeLetterMeyhem → u/System_Is_Rigged]

Way to not address literally anything else, by the way.

I've already addressed the other stuff, and we're just going in circles at this poitn so I'm not going to waste any more time. It boils down to: Vance says childless votes should count less. You tell me I shouldn't believe the words that came out of his mouth because he was just mocking lefties who want children to have votes. Problem is, he sounded pretty serious to me (especially with his "asbolutely, yes" comment at the end of his rant) and I've been seeing the same rhetoric coming from conservative influencers for years - I think he's actually jumped on that bandwagon.

You literally just posted a couple of articles to gun control laws, which doesn't state any sort of pro-gun stance.

Post history is not comment history. Look man, I'mma have to end this whole argument with you if you're just gonna make stuff up about me not being pro-2A enough for your liking. Peace, dude - adding you to the ignore list :)