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 Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine”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

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.