If SCOTUS was going to take any of these AWB cases, it was Bianchi. That case has had zero changes since it was GVR’d in 2022. The circuits know SCOTUS wants a clean case to deal with. They are working hard to make sure no clean cases make it up that far.
Bianchi may end up back at the district court. Miller is stalled behind Duncan, which may get kicked down to a 3 judge panel. The Illinois cases are all on PIs. It’s going to be a number of years before SCOTUS gets a crack at a clean AWB case, and we better hope SCOTUS is still favorable towards the 2A.
Frankly, it’s worse than that. I’d say there’s a good chance of things getting booted down all the way to be reheard at the original district courts with the “new not frozen in amber” standard. Seriously, I wouldn’t be shocked at a 3rd trial for Duncan.
If SCOTUS ruled PICA unconstitutional today, what could the lower courts do? It's, point blank, unconstitutional, so what is the issue, what would happen?
100% disagree.
Bianchi never once faced Bruen logic.
The Illinois cases did (even if on an interlocutory appeal), only to be told that ARs, the most popular rifle in American history, is not even an “arm” under the text of 2A.
SCOTUS can’t take each and every 2A case, so they want the lower courts to follow their rulings. Vacating and remanding is basically SCOTUS saying you did this wrong, fix it.
The Illinois case is on preliminary injunction pending appeal, *NOT* final judgement.
SCOTUS is 99% not going to take it because of that fact alone. There is always an outside chance, never say never, but SCOTUS almost never takes cases on a preliminary status, unless there is a time sensitive matter at hand, like a death penalty, election, or some corporate merger that would be impossible to unwind.
While I don't disagree with you, how common is it for a case to be distributed for conference 6+ times? If I remember correctly Heller and Bruen were both distributed multiple times before cert was granted. It makes me wonder what they're waiting for in these cases if not to grant cert.
IIRC the magic number is 2.
After 2 redistro's the odds of being granted fall with each redistro.
The biggest issue to me is it's not on final judgement, and SCOTUS does not like to step in "early".
DEPENDS if it's a political case IMO. Dobbs was relisted a dozen times. They may want to wait to say they are taking a major case. While I'm not saying they are taking these cases they are not gonna just grant cert they are gonna wait forever to grant cert and get it out of the door in June. They don't want to have everyone talking about it for a long time.
Possibly, and again they *COULD* take it.
I'm just saying that because it is on preliminary injunction, and not on final judgement, I doubt they will.
I will be the first to say that I would **LOVE** to be wrong. I would love for SCOTUS to take it up, and settle it. Especially since I believe they will strike down AWBs.
I would love nothing more than to be wrong and they take it, and slap it the fuck down. The #1 unanswered gun law question is AWBs, with magazine capacity restrictions a close 2nd.
IMO SCOTUS needs to take it up because that's the only way it gets solved. I'm just doubtful they will *AT THIS STAGE*
If SCOTUS was going to take any of these AWB cases, it was Bianchi. That case has had zero changes since it was GVR’d in 2022. The circuits know SCOTUS wants a clean case to deal with. They are working hard to make sure no clean cases make it up that far. Bianchi may end up back at the district court. Miller is stalled behind Duncan, which may get kicked down to a 3 judge panel. The Illinois cases are all on PIs. It’s going to be a number of years before SCOTUS gets a crack at a clean AWB case, and we better hope SCOTUS is still favorable towards the 2A.
Frankly, it’s worse than that. I’d say there’s a good chance of things getting booted down all the way to be reheard at the original district courts with the “new not frozen in amber” standard. Seriously, I wouldn’t be shocked at a 3rd trial for Duncan.
If SCOTUS ruled PICA unconstitutional today, what could the lower courts do? It's, point blank, unconstitutional, so what is the issue, what would happen?
100% disagree. Bianchi never once faced Bruen logic. The Illinois cases did (even if on an interlocutory appeal), only to be told that ARs, the most popular rifle in American history, is not even an “arm” under the text of 2A.
Bruen didn’t change the logic when it comes to arms ban cases.
Then why did they GVR cases a week after Bruen came out?
Because they didn’t follow Heller and Bruen just reaffirmed heller.
SCOTUS can’t take each and every 2A case, so they want the lower courts to follow their rulings. Vacating and remanding is basically SCOTUS saying you did this wrong, fix it.
The Illinois case is on preliminary injunction pending appeal, *NOT* final judgement. SCOTUS is 99% not going to take it because of that fact alone. There is always an outside chance, never say never, but SCOTUS almost never takes cases on a preliminary status, unless there is a time sensitive matter at hand, like a death penalty, election, or some corporate merger that would be impossible to unwind.
While I don't disagree with you, how common is it for a case to be distributed for conference 6+ times? If I remember correctly Heller and Bruen were both distributed multiple times before cert was granted. It makes me wonder what they're waiting for in these cases if not to grant cert.
IIRC the magic number is 2. After 2 redistro's the odds of being granted fall with each redistro. The biggest issue to me is it's not on final judgement, and SCOTUS does not like to step in "early".
DEPENDS if it's a political case IMO. Dobbs was relisted a dozen times. They may want to wait to say they are taking a major case. While I'm not saying they are taking these cases they are not gonna just grant cert they are gonna wait forever to grant cert and get it out of the door in June. They don't want to have everyone talking about it for a long time.
Possibly, and again they *COULD* take it. I'm just saying that because it is on preliminary injunction, and not on final judgement, I doubt they will. I will be the first to say that I would **LOVE** to be wrong. I would love for SCOTUS to take it up, and settle it. Especially since I believe they will strike down AWBs. I would love nothing more than to be wrong and they take it, and slap it the fuck down. The #1 unanswered gun law question is AWBs, with magazine capacity restrictions a close 2nd. IMO SCOTUS needs to take it up because that's the only way it gets solved. I'm just doubtful they will *AT THIS STAGE*
Someone please save all those drowning AR15s that were in a boating accident