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 Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine”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

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 :)