Uhhhhhh, . . . What response did you expect to elicit from me by asking: "Within the next 150 days, will the Court agree to hear the case?"
You had a reason for asking it, didn't you?
Take note; this is a chance for you to demonstrate that you recognize your question above was, in context, nonsensical and now understand what
I was saying in post 32 and are ready to answer my question:
"What's the status of Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban? SCOTUS denied cert on that appeal . . ."
Currently the appellate courts are in agreement with the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions. . . . The same is true concerning AWBs.
True. they all (excepting the 4th Circuit in
Kolbe) agree that those laws implicate actions protected by the 2nd Amendment which means that those lower courts have determined those laws,
on their face / as applied,
violate the 2nd Amendment.
That is indisputable fact because those lower courts then move to the second step of their process, undertaking various interest balancing tests to discern the degree of violation. I say indisputable fact because the second step of their process can only be begun
after those lower courts have recognized the challenged laws implicate the RKBA, as secured by the 2ndA.
These lower courts, through this two-step process
that they invented, then find ways to decide that the violations are only minimal burdens on the right to keep and bear arms, which is the illegitimate legal justification
why the laws were sustained.
As such it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear such a case until thereās disagreement among the appellate courts.
No, these courts employing this bullshit two-step process
guarantees the Court is going to slap them down because the Supreme Court already excluded and will reaffirm that the core protection of the constitutionally enumerated RKBA, should not be subjected to such interest-balancing tests, see
Heller (quoted below*).
That is why I argue that overruling / invalidation of these lower courts will not come by any direct cert appeal and decision by SCOTUS on any of these AW or LCM ban cases; it will be included in the Supreme Court's ruling in
NYSRPA v Bruen (did you listen to the oral argument?)
NYSRPA will result in a deluge of rehearings in these Circuits and reversals of all these AW and LCM bans . . . Just like the challenge to Chicago's handgun ban was already written and filed in the 7th Circuit immediately after
Heller was handed down, (which subsequently became
McDonald) there will be a tsunami hitting these Circuits immediately following
NYSRPA . . .
*
"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering āinterest-balancing inquiryā that āasks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statuteās salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.ā Post, at 10.
After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding āinterest-balancingā approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmentāeven the Third Branch of Governmentāthe power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judgesā assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
We would not apply an āinterest-balancingā approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.
The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the peopleāwhich Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
.
