U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the New York Rifle & Pistol case in 2019, it was big news. The lower courts in the circuits hostile to the Second Amendment have been busy rendering the Second Amendment a second tier Constitutional right. Some members of the Court, notably Justice Clarence Thomas, had written about it.
A few days ago, the Court ruled the New York Rifle & Pistol case was moot. Four justices indicated they should grant a writ of certiorari (hear the case) of another Second Amendment case. The strong implication was the split in the courts and poor treatment of the Second Amendment by several appeals courts made taking a Second Amendment case important.
It takes four Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case (grant a writ of certiorari). Four justices say they want to hear a case.
There are at least ten Second Amendment cases in the pipeline, waiting to be heard at a Supreme Court conference, where the decision to grant a writ of Certiorari will be made.
Ten Second Amendment cases have been scheduled for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 1 May, 2020. Hat tip to Second Thoughts Blog at Duke. Those cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:
Mance v. Barr
A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).
Rogers v. Grewal
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Pena v. Horan
A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive “approved” handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.
Gould v. Lipson
A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.
Cheeseman v. Polillo
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Ciolek v. New Jersey
A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.
Worman v. Healy
A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.
Malpasso v. Pallozzi
A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.
Culp v. Raoul
A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of some states, in the 7th Circuit.
Wilson v. Cook County
A challenge to an on ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.
The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019. Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.
Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as “assault weapons”. One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.
In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San Jose.
No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.
We should know the results on Monday, 4 May, 2020.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The composition of the Presidency, Senate, and S. Ct. is going to be really important. This election is shaping up to be as important as the last.
@OV, Perish the thought.
@OV, How does that evil old hag keep hanging on? I thought that she had health issues!
@OV, That was a good one!
words have meanings, and you cannot change the meaning of words. it is ironic that any grade schooler can read and understand the wording of the Second Amendment, but erudite leftists, politicians and judges, have a extremely hard time doing the same. they also have a hard time with words like; rights, man/woman, baby and standard capacity magazines. the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in common English, without legalese, and are easy to read. I wonder if leftists are not as smart as they claim or they are just evil? I can not think of another reason.
gregs, many are willfully ignorant, but there are those that hold the ropes connected to the nose rings (ironically, some literally do wear nose rings) that are evil and/or also willfully ignorant. They do not want to learn the truth as it would shatter their world false safety and “free” things, and act like a petulant child discovering Santa isn’t real to maintain their illusive Utopia.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you.
The phrase “any grade schooler can read and understand the wording of the Second Amendment” leaves me wondering IF they can read and IF they can understand the words.
Due to “Government Indoctrination Centers” and not Schools doing the “teaching”.
To support your point we only need to remember former President
Bill Clinton and the Meaning of “Is”
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
End quote.
I agree they are just evil and will say or do anything for their benefit regardless of the harm to others.
Be a bit cautious about the idea that “you cannot change the meaning of words.” In specific regard to the 2nd Amendment, you have seem the innumerable games that have been played with the words “well regulated militia,” with less attention paid to the less debatable meanings around it. Since we have allowed the meaning of “regulation” to shift, people often fail to understand that it properly means “assurance of quality operation” (as in a regulator for a motor). Now, in many people’s minds, regulation means government control applied until a thing cannot function at all. Sensibly, of course, the… Read more »
By, in my opinion, a misinterpretation, intended or unintended, from the 2nd Amendment itself. A well regulated militia has been incorrectly interpreted to “allow” government to regulate the 2nd. The Founders when drafting the Bill of Rights had just won a revolution from the worlds greatest military. The States yet formed under one banner were so vulnerable to foreign attack – even domestically, as some were still loyal to King George. Cognizant of these threats, the militia, although sent home, were told to be ready upon a minutes notice, meaning a well regulated militia – ready upon a minutes notice… Read more »
T
At the time the Constitution was ratified the word regulated does not mean what it means today. Regulated had to do with the militias being trained and disciplined. Since the militia was to supply there own arms and ammunition it is impossible to see that clause as interfering with private owneship and use and storage.
Today is the 5th of May. Have not heard and reports about these cases in the Supreme Court. All of these cases are about INFRINGEMENTS on Americans’ Rights which are acknowledged in the Second Amendment as to be in existence of God given RIGHTS, BEFORE the Constitution was put to pen.
POTUS Appoints SCOTUS.
TRUMP 2020
@JIAZ, The face of evil.
This is a step towards righting the wrongs of tyrant’s in leadership at the State level. Outstanding!