2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Begle1 on June 02, 2025, 05:50:31 AM
-
These two cases regard assault weapons bans and magazine capacity limits respectively, and were getting mulled over for months by the Supreme Court, and got denied cert today, so they won't be heard this go-around.
Quite disappointing. If SB401 had passed, this would be a very dark day.
Rumor is that perhaps John Roberts or Amy Barrett aren't as willing to overturn AWB's and mag capacity restrictions as Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are.
-
It is disappointing but we also have Duncan v Bonta (CA Magazines) and Wolford v Lopez (HI Sensitive Places) in the SCOTUS pending cert queue for next year. Those have a good chance of making it since Duncan is based on a 2nd (or 3rd?) final decision by a good judge, and though Wolford is based on a preliminary injunction, it has a circuit split with other courts on signage requirements, and has the strictest implementation of sensitive places in the nation. When I say it has a good chance, that's relatively speaking much better than the average of SCOTUS accepting 80 out of 7,000 cases in a year, or 1% chance. 20% is a good chance.
This is why this stuff must be stopped at the legislature especially since we are in the 9th Circuit Court where a 2A case has never been won in the courts and we depend on SCOTUS decisions. If the AWB passed, we may have to live with it for 1 to 10 years or more.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_SbHB_4TBg
-
From what I saw, the dissenting justices point to the fact there is already Bruen to follow, so they didn't want to have to take up cases that are already covered.
What the denial to hear the cases did not say is that the lower courts' ruling were correct. I think the obvious question at that point is, "What does a person have to do to get a lower court to rule properly under Bruen if the Supreme Court isn't interested in enforcing it?"
I have a feeling the cases will turn into lawsuits against the lower courts using the dissenting opinions' words to support them. I guess SCOTUS wants to worry more about federal and national issues and not have to repeat themselves in every state before Bruen is followed.