U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In a sweeping action that could send shudders through the gun prohibition lobbying groups and their allies on Capitol Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday granted writs of certiorari to four pending Second Amendment cases, vacating lower court rulings and remanding those cases back for “further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.”
According to the Associated Press, the cases “include ones about high-capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban and a state law that limits who can carry a gun outside the home.”
Possibly the most important of the four are Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh, the Maryland case challenging a ban on so-called “assault weapons” that could determine whether modern semi-auto rifles are protected by the Second Amendment, and Duncan v. Bonta, the California case challenging that state’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines” that hold more than ten cartridges.
The Bianchi case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Field Traders, LLC, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens.
The Duncan case was brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., and five private citizens.
What apparently caused this stunning high court action was language in the New York case, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, that put the brakes on the use of a “two-step” test manufactured by Courts of Appeals “to assess Second Amendment claims.”
Under this structure, “At the first step, the government may justify its regulation by “establish[ing] that the challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the right as originally understood,” according to the Supreme Court ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
“At the second step,” Thomas continued, “courts often analyze ‘how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and the severity of the law’s burden on that right.’ The Courts of Appeals generally maintain ‘that the core Second Amendment right is limited to self-defense in the home.’… If a ‘core’ Second Amendment right is burdened, courts apply ‘strict scrutiny’ and ask whether the Government can prove that the law is ‘narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.’…Otherwise, they apply intermediate scrutiny and consider whether the Government can show that the regulation is “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.”
But Thomas rejected that structure, stating, “Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Translation: The “two-step” process doesn’t wash.
Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder, and executive vice president, issued a statement following the high court’s mass remand.
“The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review,” he observed. “What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
He noted SAF attorneys are now reviewing earlier cases that resulted in bad rulings or were denied review by the high court “to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen.”
“It is also important,” Gottlieb observed, “that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.”
He may not be far off the bullseye. Lower courts have now been advised they need to consider Second Amendment cases following the principles set down in the Thomas opinion. It puts full gravity on Thomas’ observation that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment “is not a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
Thursday’s mass remand also tells the lower courts these cases will be acceptable for high court review should they come back.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
ALL our “Bill of Rights” have been under CONSTANT (24/7) “assault” for well over 100+ years, and at least since 1913 when the congress abrogated its constitutional responsibility to manage this nation’s money & credit, and instead SOLD OUT to a “globalist criminal syndicate”, which has now grown in size and power so as to rival ANY such entity since the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ. 2A is obviously important, but so is EVERY OTHER right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. When 1A & 2A are gone, there will be no way to reassert our rights other… Read more »
Now I am certain a lot of you out there think you can sit back and relax now. No Such Animal. There are at least 3 states who are doing everything they can to subvert and oppose this. I cite NY and Ca who’ve already stated as they stomp their feet, “I ain’t gonna do it”. In even the pro 2A states, hundreds of lefty candidates and incumbents are trying to undermine this. And these ruling sent back are only null and void until those sent back are ruled on again, then we may do it all over again. Catch… Read more »
So.., in desperation to eliminate firearms in The United States, the antigun crowd wants us to believe that the 2nd amendment to our Constitution guarantees our firearms rights only within the confines of our own homes. Well, here’s a news break! Criminals don’t see it that way, and some of them will attack you anywhere, including in your own home. So whether you’re in your home or elsewhere, always BE PREPARED and confident that your firearm will respond when you pull the trigger. Practice and testf-fire often.
Whoop, there it is! National Firearms Act, anyone?
I am in my my late 60’s I hope I live long enough to see these unconstitutional laws done away with.
I think atf my be headed to frying pan with their “rulings”
Most agencies were created by Congressional Acts known generally as enabling acts. BATFE was created in a way other than the normal Congressional act, but that does not mean that BATFE has no authority. BATFE, however, could be decommissioned without repeal of a Congressional act. Thus BATFE could be gotten rid of easier that other federal agencies. West Va. v. EPA says what we all knew, to wit: the EPA (and presumably all other federal agencies) have no authority to create statutes, or make regulations (Code of Federal Regulations) that go beyond Congressional Acts. West Va. v. EPA is a… Read more »
there are going to be a lot of wrongful internment lawsuits coming down the pike and atf and states that did not want to recognize a right , will get burned get ready for an attempt to resend second amendment
The judicial system is complicated many folks do not understand how and why the supreme court functions. This was helpful Dave making this decision understandable. The anti gun elite well the anti anything, has learned to use the lower courts to define the constitution to fit their narrative. The hope is that the opposition will not have the funds to continue the fight against the lower court’s rulings which the democrats keep putting to the test. Past and present democratic administrations have always been about control over the voters using the small % of the population to further their agenda.… Read more »
The Second Amendment grants no right “to keep and bear arms,” as that was an inalienable right granted by God long before the USA was even a glint in our Founding Fathers’ eyes. Rather, the Second is an admonishment for politicians to keep their damn laws off the We The Little Peeps’ Right To Keep and Bear Arms. “…..shall not be infringed” followed only by a PERIOD is pretty ABSOLUTE, despite what Slo Joe’s handlers print on his Do This Cheat Cards. Arrest “Doctor” Jilly for elder abuse.