Groundswell of Second Amendment Cases Seems Destined for the Supreme Court
Federal courts in blue states seem to be upholding the majority of gun control laws, even after landmark Supreme Court decisions upholding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms
We recently posted about the New York Second Amendment case challenging New York’s concealed carry permit law that requires that a permit applicant prove to a local official that he or she is of “good moral character.” Not only is this an absurd requirement (how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have “good moral character”), but even after doing so, said local official then has complete discretion on whether to approve the applicant’s permit request . . . or not. The challengers in the case just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after the Second Circuit approved the “good moral character” requirement:
From our report: Second Circuit’s Partial Upholding of New York’s Gun Carry Law Appealed to SCOTUS:
The key part of the Petition [asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case] is its discussion of the New York law’s requirement that New Yorkers prove that they have “good moral character” before obtaining a concealed carry permit:
[T]his case would allow this Court the opportunity to clarify that government may not selectively disarm law-abiding members of “the people” whenever licensing officials feel they are of poor character, potentially dangerous, or otherwise unworthy of enjoying the natural right to self-defense with which they were endowed by their Creator….
In Bruen, this Court rejected New York’s requirement that, to be authorized to bear arms in public, citizens first must demonstrate “proper cause” — defined as “a special need for self-protection.” Here, the panel sanctioned New York’s stand-in requirement that citizens convince licensing officials of their “good moral character” prior to licensure. As the district court explained, New York simply “replaced” proper cause with good moral character, “while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers….”
New York’s “good moral character” standard is…a prohibited “suitability” determination and, as the district court noted, is merely a surrogate for the “proper cause” standard that was struck down in Bruen…Indeed, under the CCIA, New York officials decide whether a person “ha[s] the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon….”
It is quite difficult to understand Bruen’s criticism of “suitability” not to include “good moral character.” And it is even more difficult to believe that this Court would approve the discretionary power to deny carry licenses to “all Americans” unless they first “convince a ‘licensing officer’” of their general morality.
[bold added; italics in original]
In doing some research to see if other cases exist that are working their way through the courts, I was surprised to find out that there are — a lot of them.
Rhode Island Magazine Limit Law
For example, as reported in the Second Amendment advocacy website The Reload, a Federal Appeals Court recently upheld a Rhode Island ammo magazine ban:
Rhode Island’s ban on possessing ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday [March 8, 2024].
A three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals [which covers Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island] unanimously upheld a lower court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction against Rhode Island’s magazine ban. The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense, and the state’s ban imposes “no meaningful burden” on Rhode Islanders’ ability to defend themselves. It also held the magazine ban was relevantly similar to historical gun restrictions, as required by the Supreme Court’s test in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen….
The ruling deals a blow to the state’s owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms. Because Rhode Island’s ban includes possession as well as future sales, those who do not surrender or permanently modify their magazines risk facing up to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine.
“Deals a blow” to firearms owners? I’ll say. Think about a home invasion scenario, more and more a possibility these days with illegal aliens overrunning the entire country, and you’ll understand that one handgun with only a ten-round magazine will do little to stop said invasion.
Anyway, the Plaintiff/Appellants in the case are undoubtedly going to ask the Supreme Court to review their case as well, just like the New York Plaintiffs did. We will update you when they do.
Illinois “Assault Weapon” Ban and Magazine Limit Law
There is also a case challenging an Illinois law banning certain “assault rifles” and also imposing a magazine limit: Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans:
Illinois and several of its localities can continue to enforce their bans on AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons, a federal appeals court ruled Friday [November 3, 2023].
A three-judge panel for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court decision blocking the gun bans after finding that the state and local governments “have a strong likelihood of success” in defending the law on constitutional grounds. In a 2-1 decision, the judges said that semi-automatic AR-15s and the magazines that come standard with them are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are “indistinguishable” from fully-automatic machineguns like the M16….
The ruling deals a sweeping blow to gun-rights advocates in six separate lawsuits fighting gun bans in Illinois. The order—which covers bans of the state, the cities of Chicago and Naperville, and Cook County—functionally ends any hope gun-rights supporters may have had that the bans would be blocked before a decision is reached on the merits in any of the cases….
Judge Michael B. Brennan, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented from his colleagues and argued that the Illinois bans at issue were far too broad to pass constitutional muster.
“The Second Amendment ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ is not a second-class right,’” he wrote. “Yet the State of Illinois and several Illinois municipalities have categorically banned law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing a sweeping range of firearms and magazines.”
He took particular aim at the majority’s classification of civilian semi-automatic weapons as being similar to bannable machineguns.
“In a remarkable conclusion, the majority opinion decides that these firearms are not ‘Arms’ under the Second Amendment,” Brennan wrote. “The banned arms are ‘in common use.’ They are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense. They may be ‘dangerous’—as are all firearms—but they are not ‘unusual,’ and thus would not be within the history and tradition recognized in Heller of prohibiting ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons.”
In this case, three separate petitions have been filed asking the Supreme Court to review the case.
The first petition, in a case entitled Harrel v. Raoul, Kwame Raoul being the Attorney General of Illinois, states the questions presented to the Supreme Court as follows:
(1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with semiautomatic firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.
(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 are in common use for lawful purposes.
(3) Whether enforcement of Illinois’s semiautomatic firearm and ammunition magazine bans should be enjoined.
Kwame and the State of Illinois have until April 15, 2024 to respond to Harrell’s request that the Supreme Court take the case. They will undoubtedly respond that the Seventh Circuit got it exactly right, and the AR-15 ban (of which there are 24.4 million in circulation nationwide) and magazine bans are good law and fully constitutional.
The second petition, in a case entitled National Association for Gun Rights, Robert C. Bevis, and Law Weapons, Inc. [doing business as] Law Weapons & Supply, An Illinois Corporation v. the City of Naperville, Illinois, Jason Arres, and the State of Illinois, Jason Arres being the Naperville Chief of Police, states the questions presented to the Supreme Court as follows:
1. Is the State of Illinois’ ban of certain handguns constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional?
2. Is the “in common use” test announced in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), hopelessly circular and therefore unworkable?
3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous Founding era regulation?
The City of Naperville, IL and the other Supreme Court “Respondents” also have until April 15, 2024 to respond to the Petitioners’ request that the Supreme Court take the case. They will also undoubtedly respond that the Seventh Circuit got the case exactly right and the Supreme Court should not review the case.
The third petition, in a case called Langley v. Kelly, Brendan F. Kelly being the Director of the Illinois State Police, states the questions presented to the Supreme Court as follows:
1. Is the State of Illinois’ absolute ban of certain commonly owned semi-automatic handguns constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional?
2. Is the State of Illinois’ absolute ban of all commonly owned semi-automatic handgun magazines over 15 rounds constitutional in light of the holding in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional?
3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, possession and carriage of certain commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns and standard capacity firearm magazines tens of millions of which are possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous historical ban as required by D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).
Kelly also has until April 15, 2024 to respond to the Petitioners’ request that the Supreme Court take the case. He too will also undoubtedly respond that the Seventh Circuit got the case exactly right and the Supreme Court should not review the case.
Lots for the Supreme Court to chew on as they decide whether to take these cases.
One interesting twist is that in the Harrel v. Raoul case, the National Association of Police has filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the Harrel Petitioners. This brief, available for review here, argues that the “Seventh Circuit’s legal standard eviscerates the Second Amendment, that the Illinois law’s “restrictions [approved by the Seventh Circuit] threaten to leave American citizens without effective means to utilize the sort of weapons employed by criminals throughout the country—and employed by nearly all police departments to fight them.”
And in a key paragraph:
In the world far removed from courtrooms, judge’s chambers and lawyers’ offices, Americans are using guns to defend themselves and others at extremely high rates—up to 2.8 million times a year. More than half of the incidents of self-defense involve more than one assailant, in which the ability to fire more defensive rounds obviously assumes more importance. Indeed, 3.2% of incidents involve five or more attackers, where the ability to shoot more than ten rounds is obviously critical. There are, of course, numerous reported incidents of citizens defending themselves who have been required to use more than ten shots to do so—or failing to defend themselves when only ten rounds were available.
Take that, gun controllers — hopefully it will pique some interest among the Court.
Delaware “Assault Weapon” Ban and Magazine Limit Law
Three cases winding their way through the Delaware federal court were just argued at the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware).
On Monday, March 11, 2024, the Third Circuit heard oral argument in Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc, et al v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security (Nos. 23-1633, 23-1634, and 23-1641), where the Plaintiff/Appellants argued, in a key paragraph:
As a matter of plain text, the Second Amendment extends to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132; i.e., “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581. As a matter of history, Heller and Bruen establish that the only exception to this broadly protective amendment, is that arms that are “dangerous and unusual” are not protected. However, if an arm is “in common use” then it is, by definition, not dangerous and unusual. In this case, that is dispositive and the State and the district court’s arguments to the contrary, including the argument that these arms, which are chosen by millions of Americans for the purpose of self-defense, are by their nature ill-suited to that purpose, are irrelevant and should be disregarded.
It will take several months, most likely, for the Third Circuit to render a decision in this case. We will let you know when they do, and either way there will likely be yet another Petition to the Supreme Court asking the Justices to review the case.
Connecticut “Assault Weapon” Ban and Magazine Limit Law
In August of last year a federal judge in Connecticut, Senior District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton, upheld Connecticut’s restrictive “assault weapons” ban and magazine limits: Federal Judge Upholds Connecticut ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans:
The Second Amendment does not protect AR-15s and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, a Bill Clinton appointee, denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the state of Connecticut’s ban on the possession and sale of so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs). She did so after determining that AR-15s and similar rifles, as well as LCMs, are not protected by the Constitution.
“Plaintiffs’ proposed ownership of assault weapons and LCMs is not protected by the Second Amendment because they have not demonstrated that the specific assault weapons and LCMs in the Challenged Statutes are commonly sought out, purchased, and used for self-defense,” Arterton wrote in Flanigan v. Lamont. “In the absence of persuasive evidence that the assault weapons or LCMs listed in the statutes are commonly used or are particularly suitable for self-defense, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden.”
The ruling deals a blow to gun-rights advocates looking to challenge hardware bans in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
This case has been appealed to the Second Circuit, now titled National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, and written briefs have been submitted. Oral argument should be scheduled fairly soon, with an opinion out several months after that.
Washington State “Assault Weapon” Ban and Magazine Limit Law
In June and September of last year, a federal judge in Washington, as in Connecticut, upheld laws similar to Connecticut’s banning certain so-called “assault weapons” and placing limits on ammo rounds carried in handgun magazines: Federal Judge Upholds Washington Ammo Magazine Ban:
Washington state can continue to enforce its ban on the sale of commonly owned ammunition magazines, a federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Mary Dimke, a Joe Biden appointee, denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by gun-rights advocates against the state’s magazine ban. She ruled that the plaintiffs failed to make a persuasive case that “large capacity” magazines are “arms.”
“At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right,” Judge Dimke wrote in Brumback v. Ferguson.
The ruling deals another blow to gun owners in the Evergreen State, who have faced a string of losses in legal challenges to the state’s gun laws in recent months even as similar laws have been struck down by courts elsewhere. A separate challenge against the state’s ban on certain semi-automatic weapons was similarly rejected in June.
Brumback v. Ferguson is now stayed pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case, Duncan v. Bonta. En banc, meaning entire court, oral argument in that case is scheduled for Tuesday, March 19, 2024, and concerns a California law limiting magazine capacity, which was ruled unconstitutional by a California federal judge.
Oregon Magazine Limit and Carry Permitting Law
From The Reload: Federal Judge Rules Oregon Magazine Ban, Gun-Purchase Permitting Constitutional:
A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s controversially strict gun-control law constitutional.
On Friday [July 14, 2023], District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Measure 114’s ban on large-capacity magazines and permit requirement to purchase a firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
“As explained below, Plaintiffs have not shown that the Second Amendment protects large-capacity magazines, defined as magazines capable of firing eleven or more rounds without reloading,” Judge Immergut wrote in Oregon Firearms Federation v. Kotek. “And even if the Second Amendment were to protect large-capacity magazines, this Court finds that Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant have established that Oregon’s restrictions on the use and possession of large-capacity magazines are consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”
This case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the appeal is stayed pending Duncan v. Bonta, which was ruled unconstitutional by a California federal judge.
Summary
As you can see, numerous cases are either at the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review, or are likely to end up there.
Whether the Court grants review in any of these cases might individually be a longshot, but sooner or later the Court will have to take notice of the sheer volume of these cases and provide further guidance.
We will keep you updated.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Re: Bevis
“The State of Illinois, in the legislation that lies at the
heart of these cases, has decided to regulate assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines—a decision that is valid only if
the regulated weapons lie on the military side of that line and
thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second
Amendment. ”
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1699043799/Bevis_v_Naperville_Opinion.pdf?1699043799
US vs Miller
“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/
Seems like a conflict ripe for the….
“The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense…
…owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms.”
And the second observation proves that the first must indeed have been not a finding of fact, but an arbitrary ruling.
My thoughts exactly. I doubt they made a finding of fact that so-called “LCMs” are “rarely used in self-defense”. It probably was never recorded what kind of magazine was inserted in each of the firearms used for self-defense.
The courts just looked at how many rounds were fired in each case, which is not at all the same thing.
News flash for the First Circuit courts: A firearm can fire fewer rounds than its full capacity. A pistol loaded with a 16- or 17-round mag — standard for a lot of pistol models — is capable of firing 3 or 4 rounds and then stopping when the trigger stops being pulled. Just because only 3 or 4 rounds were fired does NOT mean a “LCM” was not used. Even if zero shots were fired and the assailant decided he had better places to be, that doesn’t mean a “LCM” was not used.
Otherwise, using the First Circuit’s logic, RI could limit magazines to 3 or 4 rounds and not significantly burden the right of self-defense; the fact they only limit it to 10 is generous.
(And cue the politicians introducing legislation to limit magazines to a “still generous” 6 rounds, and that only because most revolvers hold that many.)
Alternatively, if the self-defense cases presented as evidence were all from RI, everyone used 10-round-or-smaller magazines because that’s what’s legal. But the courts cannot use the circular logic of, “We can continue to ban them because nobody uses them, and nobody uses them because they are banned, so it’s fine.” That line of thinking will certainly be smacked down by SCOTUS should the case make it there.
“But the courts cannot use the circular logic”
SCOTUS already uses this circular logic, to justify the Heller “exception” for automatic weapons. They are not in common use ONLY because the government ALREADY functionally prohibits them.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned high speed automatic printing presses shooting out hundreds of pages per minute. Perhaps it is time for some common-sense restrictions upon the 1st Amendment?
This amendment was explained to our class in junior high school American History when I attended in 1962. A well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to protect our country. A standing army did not exist at the time, but could be formed when needed out of the citizenry (males). They would need to supply their own weapons and be proficient in their use. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with fighting our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. How we even got to this point in banning certain weapons is beyond my comprehension.
Exactly. Liberals have had something of a new-found love affair with Hamilton, more recently. But, to your point, Hamilton could not have been more clear in Federalist 29 when discussing the importance of revolution and how the 2nd Amendment plays a crucial role in that regard:
Hamilton knew the importance of self-defense, particularly against a usurpative government.
I can understand how we got to the point of banning certain weapons; the powers-that-be think such weapons make We the People too dangerous (to them), so we shouldn’t be allowed them.
What I wonder is how we went from U.S. v. Miller finding that weapons with military utility are expressly protected* …
… to more recent findings that only NON-military firearms are protected and military-useful versions may be banned. (And nevermind that most “civilian” firearm categories have some military history, either in their design or use — black powder muzzle-loaders, bolt-action rifles, and “six-shooter” revolvers were all military-issue at some point).
These findings are polar opposites, so of course it takes a double-thinking Leftist judge to believe both at the same time.
———
* – At issue was a sawed-off (short-barrelled) shotgun for which Mr. Miller did not register or pay the tax stamp, as required by the then-new National Firearms Act (NFA). The court was not presented evidence that such a shotgun has any military utility (not that they aren’t military-useful, but the court wasn’t shown the evidence; Mr. Miller died and his attorneys didn’t show up to state his case on his behalf), so they upheld the NFA restrictions — which, notably, are NOT an outright ban.
Mr. Miller didn’t need a lawyer to show up on his behalf because he was never convicted of anything, and was not under indictment. US v. Miller does NOT say what “muh historians” want you to believe it does, and simply reading it will prove that to you. (Well, you may need a couple of clues to where the fnords are, but once they have been explained, they are nakedly obvious.)
Perhaps the way forward to end the gamesmanship of these blue States is for a red State to take the same sort language as NY did in permitting and apply it to voting and speech. Oh did you want to register to vote or apply for any sort of permit for speech on public property? Well we need to investigate your social media history and so on. Probably won’t take longer than eight or ten months but you gotta pay upfront the non refundable application fees. Don’t call us, we’ll call you b/c we issue those on a may issue basis. I suspect that will make the point that such barriers to any rights of Citizens are unconstitutional.
“I suspect that will make the point that such barriers to any rights of Citizens are unconstitutional.”
Don’t give the likes of Hochul, Lujan-Grisham, or Whitmer any ideas.
This one is interesting. A 2A ruling from far left judge.
“District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional”
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/03/16/district-judge-gun-ban-illegal-immigrant-unconstitutional/
“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”
I wonder if this Barky appointment judge assumes wrongly once anyone gets here all US constitution rights applies to them, like voting also.
Back on topic, I have no hope that the Supreme Court isn’t a political organization
He assumes it correctly. All constitutional rights apply to all person who are in the USA, regardless of citizenship or legal status.
Voting is not a constitutional right.
If voting is not a constitutional right, how could the supreme court rule on the constitutionality of poll taxes?
A good question. Same for any cases that come up regarding ID to vote.
First of all, poll taxes are completely legal. In fact the US constitution explicitly contemplates the possibility of a federal poll tax. Like many people you seem not to know what a poll tax is, and are under the misimpression that it has something to do with voting. It doesn’t.
Second, if you’re referring to the once-common requirement that people delinquent on their taxes couldn’t vote (unless the poll officer decided to waive it, which he would for white people but not black ones), the supreme court never struck that practice down; it was banned by a constitutional amendment.
There is no constitutional right to vote. The 14th amendment explicitly recognized that, which is why it contains a whole section imposing a penalty at census time on states that choose not to let black people vote. That section never came into effect, because before the first census after it was ratified the 15th amendment came along and said “Never mind, forget the penalty, you just can’t do that.”
The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments place specific limits on a state’s ability to restrict the franchise. Other than those four limits, states remain free to limit or expand the franchise as much as they like. (Though for congressional elections, congress has the final say.)
Those are not usually constitutional cases, they’re cases brought under the Voting Rights Act. Sometimes constitutional cases are brought, under the 15h amendment’s specific prohibition on limiting the franchise “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.
If so then do the obligations of Citizenship also apply equally?
To all citizens, yes. But we’re not talking about the rights of citizenship. We’re talking about the rights that the constitution secures to all persons. The constitution makes no distinction between citizens and aliens.
If drivers licenses from one state must be accepted by the others, why doesn’t the same apply to licenses for guns (even though getting government permission for guns seems to infringe on that “shall not infringe”)?
For whatever reason, federal courts have looked at CCW permits in a similar manner as they treat medical and law licenses. I don’t believe it’s federal law that encumbers one state to honor the driver’s license from another state. Instead, that’s rooted in a compact between the states that dates back to the 1950s or before. In fact, that agreement isn’t absolute which is why Ron DeSantis can sign legislation that prohibits illegals from using out-of-state driver’s licenses in FL.
A marriage license is probably a better example. States are obligated by the Full Faith & Credit Clause (I believe) to honor marriage licenses irrespective of the state of issue, something that came up with anti-miscegenation laws before the Civil Rights Act was passed. While you don’t have a constitutional right to drive, or practice medicine or law, you do have a constitutional right to carry a weapon, just like you have a constitutional right to marry which is another reason states have to extend reciprocity on marriage license.
Drivers’ licenses from one state don’t have to be accepted by the others. They just choose to.
And no, states are not obligated to honor marriage licenses irrespective of the state of issue. There are in fact states that don’t recognize marriages that could not have been legally contracted in those states. I believe Michigan is an example, where not only are first cousins not allowed to marry, but if they marry in another state Michigan doesn’t recognize the marriage.
There is, apparently, a reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, or the provinces and territories with the states, recognizing each others’ driver’s licenses. On YouTube, there is a video that would be amusing were it not so pathetic, of a Beverly Hills police ossifier telling a Canadian motorist that they must have a California DL to drive in California.
This is the sort of nonsense (or harassment, as the car he was driving was a high-powered sports car) I’d expect from the LAPD, but not BHPD. I grew up right near the BH/LA line, and the BHPD was always pretty cool, and courteous. I guess they are just another Department of Revenue Enhancement now.
You sure you”re not confusing Beverly Hills Cop with one of the common youTube dumb cop videos? 😉
To paraphrase Andy Jackson,. “SCOTUS has opined, but they have no way of enforcing it?
Yes, they do have a way. It just takes time, and resolution. If SCOTUS is now committed to upholding the RKBA, it can grant cert for all these cases and strike down the laws at issue. And then wait for the next round and strike those down too, until the states get the message.
until the states get the message
Annnnnd, that will do exactly what? They have no teeth. Period.
I’m not sure they should, but stop romanticizing them as having some power to actually hold the rest of the government to the Constitution.
No, the only way for states to “get the message” is for the people to hold them accountable – including Hawaiian judges. But some large portion of our country is no longer interested in having a Constitutional Republic. We have to change their minds if we want our Constitution to have any more meaning than, say, the one in the old Soviet Union.
The courts have teeth. They can strike down laws, and thereafter those laws cannot be used in any court. Nobody can be prosecuted for violating a law that the courts have declared not to be a law. If anyone is arrested for violating such a law the courts will order them released, and if they are not then the courts will send a marshal to arrest whoever is defying the order.
and thereafter those laws cannot be used in any court
So, like laws that violate Bruen can’t be used in any court?
What color is the sky in your perfect world where the courts and legislatures obey?
After taking two 2A cases this term, it is highly unlikely that they take another next term, given that none of the cases are complete with en banc review.
What is most frustrating as a 2A supporter is that the court has almost always sided with the government over the citizen in granting stays of lower court orders.
Judges, administrators, legislators are all on the same team, all receiving paychecks from the government. And that team ain’t us.
Will SCOTUS actually rule positively for us in these cases? They ignored a lower court revolt against Heller and denied cert in Peruta, all when they had fewer progressives in the panel than they do now.
I’m waiting for the Hawaii case, where the “Spirit of Aloha” allegedly supersedes the plain text of the Constitution.
There is no such case. You have fallen for some very bad reporting, including here on LI.
The HI supreme court never said that. It acknowledges that the second amendment is in full force in HI, and is not affected by state laws such as the “Spirit of Aloha” law. That applies only to state laws and the state constitution.
I would love it if the patently obvious invasion over our borders from a myriad of countries could be used to rebut any restrictions on 2A.
Given that there’s a revolving door for illegal alien violent felons, the case for 2A has never been stronger.
Unless the SC takes away legislators personal immunity for passing these laws making their own personal funds put to risk for lawsuits against their violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution (remember Sarah Palin and her lawfare assaults) then unless the SC gets their own personal army of enforcers the 2nd doesn’t mean a damn thing to the left and the assaults will continue regardless the SC’s decisions.
That is ridiculous. You’re so off base that it’s difficult to even grasp hold of a thread to pull your mass of misconceptions apart. You have confused several different things.
Suffice it to say that (1) the SC can’t take away congressional immunity. (2) congressional immunity is in any case irrelevant, since the entire idea of punishing legislators for the laws they vote for is completely illegitimate and inconceivable. Violation of an oath of office can never be made a crime. Nor can any court ever determine whether someone has violated such an oath. (3) The legislative branch is entitled to its own opinion on the constitution, and is not bound by the judicial branch’s view. A legislator is entitled to say that he believes SCOTUS is wrong, and to vote for a law that he knows SCOTUS will strike down, in full compliance with his oath. The judicial branch merely gets the last word, since it gets to strike down the laws it thinks are unconstitutional.
Violation of an oath of office can never be made a crime.
That’s patently absurd.
It’s the plain and obvious truth. There is no such crime, and cannot be such a crime, as “violating an oath”.
You keep using words like “cannot” when you hopefully mean “should not.”
The ability to make such a law is inherent the power of the government, regardless of its utility, advisability, or constitutionality.
To the best of my knowledge that is not true. Once the local official has determined that you are of “good moral character”, he then has no discretion and must issue the permit.
That was pretty much the whole point of the new legislation. New York used to be a “may issue” state. So there was no requirement for a “good moral character”, because the officials could just deny a permit on a whim. Then the Supreme Court struck down “may issue”. Suddenly officials were required to issue permits, and they didn’t want to. So the state legislature came to the rescue by enacting the “good moral character” requirement. Since there is no objective measure of that, all an official has to do in order to deny a permit is to decide that someone is a bad character. And that is what the Supreme Court has to strike down, if its previous decisions are to mean anything.
But once the official has determined good character, he can’t then deny a permit. That’s how the state claims to be in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Not only is this an absurd requirement (how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have “good moral character”)
Actually, this used to be pretty easy. Back when almost all Americans shared a moral framework, it was fairly common to use that sort of phrasing. The real issue is where there is not a shared moral code (you know, like Progressives, some Muslims, psychopaths, etc.). And especially when those in charge do not share your moral code.
The root of all our political problems these days.
If the Supreme Court can ignore the clear language of the 14th Amendment, there’s no reason it should ignore a full half of the 2nd Amendment and require the “militia regulation” in place at the time of the founding.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about?
Is it even possible for anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest with the left’s position on any issue… to be of “good moral character”?
When a government declares that a law abiding citizen does not have a right to arm themselves, it has essentially declared that they don’t have a right to life.
Indeed. There is some supreme bold faced, italicized irony at the notion of a NY State (!) official passing judgement on someone else’s “good moral character’ when it’s debatable that they themselves possess ”the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon” . . . or much of any other responsibility involving anything from issuing state wide burning bans, enacting and enforcing gun and criminal law, to bringing others up on criminal charges and meteing out penalties.
I wish the notion that Second Amendment cases are destined for the Supreme Court were (a condition contrary to fact) more comforting.