No Decision Yet as Supreme Court Relists Gun Ban Case

By David Codrea

US Supreme Court
Will the Supreme Court dare to hear the semi-auto ban case, and if so, will they dare to turn their backs on founding intent and legal precedent?

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Right to keep and bear arms advocates will have to wait a bit longer to learn if the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to an Illinois city’s ban on certain semiautomatic firearms and standard capacity magazines. Per SCOTUSblog, the case has been relisted again (although the Proceedings and Orders list has not yet been updated at this writing).

“[D]on’t give up hope just yet, Second Amendment aficionados,” attorney John P. Elwood writes about the delayed decision.  “Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 15-133, stuck around for its third re-list.”

“Re-list”?  Again, per SCOTUSblog’s “Frequently Asked Questions”:

When a case is “relisted,” that means that it is set for reconsideration at the Justices’ next Conference. Unlike a hold, this will show up on the case’s electronic docket. A relist can mean several things, including the fairly straightforward prospect that one or more Justices wants to take a closer look at the case; that one or more Justices is trying to pick up enough votes to grant review (four are needed); that the Justices are writing a summary reversal (that is, a decision that the lower court opinion was so wrong that the Court can decide the case on the merits without briefing or oral argument); or that one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the decision to deny review.

“This was, and is, the glamour case among the [2015 October term] Second Amendment relists,” Elwood elaborated. “To be sure, all the statistics suggest that the odds of a grant start falling off around the third relist. But this fall has been a time for beating the odds.”

For those who have only heard about the case from the media, you can read the petition for writ of certiorari here. It presents two questions:

  1. Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected “Arms” that includes the most popular rifles in the Nation.

  2. Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that number in the tens of millions and make up nearly half of the Nation’s total stock of privately owned ammunition magazines for handguns and rifles.

These are issues SCOTUS has been avoiding for years, and gun owners are getting tired of legal risks arising from state and local bans and lower court ruling conflicts. Impatience is justified, especially when it’s clear from the writings of the Founders — and from longstanding Supreme Court precedent — that an individual right to keep and bear arms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that [are] part of the ordinary military equipment, or that … could contribute to the common defense” is exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

The continued relisting of Friedman ought to have gun owners on pins and needles, because the Supreme Court did not decline the case outright, meaning some of the Justices want to hear it. It remains to be seen if they will, or if they will once more hide from their responsibility without comment. If they do take on the case, a decision siding with gun prohibitionists will provoke millions of angry gun owners to embrace the “we will not comply/your move” new paradigm, and that could quickly get dangerous.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Clark Kent
Clark Kent
4 years ago

Be sure to write Darren a letter c/o the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, KS. That is where tax dodgers end up spending time.

Rick from Paso
Rick from Paso
4 years ago

I hope they make the case that in the Miller decision, the Supreme court ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not a “Militia” type weapon and therefore could be outlawed. By their reasoning “We the People” should be allowed whatever small arms are used by our military.

Don Holmes
Don Holmes
4 years ago

Tom, is there actually 2 of us using your comments . What I found is I am rated lower than a constitutionalist for being a believer in Common law. (www,nationallibertyalliance.org.) It’s the only court that is recognized by the Constitution , in the 5th and 7th.

brian morton
brian morton
4 years ago

Interestingly, I was going to link to the Oathkeepers.org involvement and pre-screening of the new Midnight Ride movie from last night, but strangely http://www.oathkeepers.org is down for maintenance today.

desert
desert
4 years ago

These obama ass kissers better be careful how they vote…their legacy will be as “brown shirts” doing hitlers will to destroy America!

Larry Muhr
Larry Muhr
4 years ago

It worries me that some of the Supreme Court Justices seem to go hand-in-hand with the President, especially the one who nominated them. I believe the Justices should rule on points of law, not the political climate of the moment.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
4 years ago

Eric: I agree! “For the Children” means that the Militia which equals(=) The People have the RIGHT to be armed with weaponry EQUAL to the Military. This IS “for the children” so they can live in Freedom and Security from terrorists and unlawful governments.

BK
BK
4 years ago

take a page from the liberal playbook, and IGNORE the black-robed mullahs… lock and load.

freewill
freewill
4 years ago

but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.
……..Hamilton.pg.185 No.29…federalist papers

RM Molon Labe
RM Molon Labe
4 years ago

One of the greatest evils are those who take an oath to govern by “delegated powers” but use it to take from others what they keep for themselves. “A Government that does not trust its law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, is itself, unworthy of trust.” –James Madison, chief wordsmith of the Constitution “Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserve to be slaves.”– Stephen F. Austin, 1835 “The historical reality of the Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not… Read more »

Darren
Darren
4 years ago

When are gun owners going to figure out that we have to not comply with taxation to keep our other rights safe? Stop funding the criminal organization known as government. You know, the gang that threatens your gun rights. ‘Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State… Read more »

Eric
Eric
4 years ago

SCOTUS is so biased they all need to step down in shame. Unbiased Constitutional opinions are needed not blurbs of “for the children , or public safety”.

Jerry the Geek
Jerry the Geek
4 years ago

surely the SCOTUS members are not unaware of the “will not comply” movements in several of the states, in response to state rulings which they consider unacceptable to honest citizens. We cannot help wondering if this pre-ordained “intent to noncompliance’ will be considered a citizen movement, and whether it will bias their decision toward less regulation of arbitrary measures. Magazine capacity restrictions are rife for Supreme decisions, since the several states cannot even agree on how many rounds ARE “acceptable” in a “legal” magazine. More important, verbiage in state laws often suggest that (for example) prohibited firearms include “Able to… Read more »

Tom
Tom
4 years ago

We the People can make the decision in a more powerful court than the Supreme Court. It is called the Common Law Court of Record and is protected by the U.S.Constitution Bill of Rights Article 7.