Thursday, May 07, 2020

The Supreme Court Moves 10 Second Amendment Cases to Conference on 1 May, 2020

Dean Weingarten in Front of Supreme Court of the United States

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.

Update: No cases were granted a writ of certiorari. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


ScienceABC123 said...

"The nonsense is only going to end one of two ways: either the US Supreme Court finally rules all gun control laws are un-Constitutional, or a second Civil War. I hope for the former, but fear it will be the latter. - ScienceABC123

Anonymous said...

Absolute BULLSHIT, the PRIMARY PURPOAE OF THE SUPREME COURT IS TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws. Since 1934 the court has failed miserably to prevent unconstitutional infringements. The constitution was written to be enforced as written and can only be changed by a ratified amendment. any change to what is written requires an amendment no act is an amendment. An amendment Identifies any change, words added or words ignored are infringements. Until the words shall not be infringed are deleted from the second amendment by a ratified amendment nothing can be changed, added or ignored. All Acts passed by congress are infringement by definition for the second amendment. shall Not be infringed is a absolute legal command. Only the citizens can change the second amendment. the amendment process was created to prevent government from changing any thing by passing an act. There are no constitutionalist on the court.