Supreme Court SCOTUS gun case arguments New York
Courtesy Matt Laur
Previous Post
Next Post

A number of Second Amendment cases — 10 in all — have been in suspended animation. The Cases involving everything from “may issue” carry permits to banning “assault weapons” to interstate sales of handguns have been at the Supreme Court for consideration — some for years — and have been punted along, most likely awaiting a resolution in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case.

The consensus was, if the Court ruled aggressively in NYSRPA, the Justices would then remand some or all of these cases for further consideration by lower courts given the new landscape under the Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA jurisprudence. If NYSRPA was declared moot — as it was last week — those other cases would be there, ready for consideration.

Thursday, 10 Second Amendment cases went to the Court’s weekly conference for consideration.

This morning, the Court’s order list was released…and didn’t mention any of the cases. The Justices have relisted all 10 of the Second Amendment cases, meaning the Court can take them up at some time down the road.

Stand by for a quick analysis from our Court watcher, LKB.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Timeline is “whenever they feel like getting around to it.” Frustrating, but that’s SCOTUS practice.

        Only hard and fast rule is that they almost always deal with pending cases and cert petitions by the end of the term (early July, typically), so I suspect we’ll see something in the next six weeks. Betting odds are that they will grant cert in at least one such case (to be argued in the fall) and hold the others . . . but if they deny cert in all of them it almost certainly means that Roberts has squished and is the new Anthony Kennedy.

  1. So in the event of a Trump loss and a lefty replacement for RBG the court will start taking the cases and for all our polite doormatting we’re left no better off for having entrusted our liberties to the whims of others.


    Cynicism is all I’ve left after seeing so much promise get flushed down the toilet.

    • Unlikely. If Roberts (who was in the majority on Heller and MacDonald) has squished a-la Kennedy, then we’re back to a 4-1-4 Mexican Standoff. Anti’s won’t grant cert because they do no know which way Roberts’s would go. Pro 2A faction won’t grant cert for the same reason. Changing out one or more of the antis with another anti won’t affect this situation.

      • Roberts doesn’t want to go an inch beyond Heller. more to the point he also doesn’t want any 5:4 decisions. It was his vote that mooted NYNRA case. When in fact the courts have heard quite a few cases on other bill of rights issues where the law that triggered them had been repealed. he enabled a win for gun control.

        He is waiting for more polls closer to election. Since he wants to play nice with the four left knowing it will be six leftists when the Dems pack the court. If the Dems take both White House and Senate,e the first order of business for majority leader and most vitriolic anti gunner Chuck Schumer is running the show. You will see significant portions of even Heller overruled, and all these case lost. Blue states that have Shall issue will be motivated to go to may issue. And mag bans and AWBan proliferate by state, and probably become federal law as well.

        Any gun owner who does not go out and vote for our side, will be complicit.

        • Absolutely…..Bush’s gift that keeps on giving has to be out numbered on that court or we could see the 2nd Amendment gone in the next 5 years……Trump needs to win, and we need more Republicans in the Senate to out vote the democrats and the rinos ……..and we can’t do that if conservatives sit at home on their a***s because they don’t like Trump ……….this is far bigger and more dangerous than not liking Trump……we have a once in a life time chance to change the court and protect the 2nd Amendment……..

      • Sergei, that was a very witty comment!

        Seriously, a very appropriate way to express your displeasure without talking about putting people against the wall and shooting them or throwing ropes on trees for lynchings, it made you sound almost reasonable.

        Thank you.

        • Lynchings and putting people against the wall are practices of Democrats ie statists.

        • Miner49er longs for the good old days in the south when the democrats wore white at night.

      • Exactly the opposite. This will now be pushed even further out toward election, or even after. Robert is banking on Trump losing or at the very least wants to see the polls before deciding any 2A.. The Democrats will pack the count if they win White House and Senate. If RBG lasts eight months, and chances are she will, and the Dems take either the WH or Senate, and chances are they will, all ten cases will will be loses for us — maybe very big loses.

      • Which wicked witch? Pelosi or anti-Gunsberg? Or, more concisely, which witch is which?

  2. These restrictive gun laws only hurt honest citizens! Criminals will ALWAYS have guns! And as far as criminals that perform armed robberies, EXECUTE THEM! It would not take long before many criminals would think twice about performing an armed robbery! But don’t take it out on the honest citizenry!

  3. The court is still not majority 2A friendly yet. Still need at least one more 2A nominee to get anywhere.

  4. Looks like Roberts had his way and blocked them all. With the court now virtually totally partisan on core issues like Second amendment, he does not want to deal with any of them. He is overly sensitive to 5:4 votes and doesn’t want any more if he can stop them. Just like the Senate and House squandered 2017-18 on a host of issues for fear of appearing partisan d when the other side has such fear. The other side has no fear of close votes in legislatures to mess with Constitution, no fear of packing the court, no fear of directly threatening court and balance of powers, and no fear of litmus tests

    Normally a re-list is not bad, but make no mistake this IS bad. Each day that goes by the chance of another Trump appointment recedes, both because of risk of Dem in White House or Dem Senate (with insanely unapologetic gun grabber Schumer running it no less), and either would be a huge reversal for Second Amendment rights. If the Dems get White House and Senate they will pack the court in the first month with two ultra left appointments and overturn Heller.

    This is all about Roberts. The rumor from clerks leaking is that he will be retributive against any forcing of the Second Amendment. His caving on NYNRA case, when the court has refused to moot many other cases on withdrawn laws relating to other Bill of Rights Amendments, was a big middle finger to gun owners..

    • “The other side has no fear of close votes in legislatures… “

      I would disagree, just look back to 2009 and 10 when the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the White House.

      They had plenty of time to shove through more repressive gun control legislation but instead, they chose to expand gun rights to thousands of acres of federal lands and authorized bump stocks.

      • They didn’t authorize bump stocks, ATF correctly decided and no one made a serious attempt to thwart it.

        • @mike, you are responding to “miner” aka 2Asux. he/she has told us that gun murder is much higher today than 25 years ago when in fact the rate has halved. he/she has told us fatal gun accident rates have increased, when they have plunged every decade are 1/6 the rate of the 1970’s.
          Miner is just a liar. he.she doesnt know a thing about firearms, firearms law or firearms related statistics and just posts complete lies and doesn’t respond when challenged or corrected.

          miner has told us they just want background checks, but also in other posts opposes Heller meaning they want revolvers banned even for law abiding people who do get background checks, satisfy waiting periods and a safe to keep them in.

      • You clearly fail civics 101. There was 60 vote rule in senate at the time moron. Nice try. And most Dems voted against expanding to federal land. Bumps tocks were allowed for decades and confirmed to be so from 2002 and in 2009 by the COUTS not the congress.

        Your posts are consistently short on, or direct inversions of facts, it is clear you don’t know a thing about firearms, or firearms law. Why do you bother when you are just displaying ignorance?

      • True but how much of the damage to the second amendment that was done over the years has been undone, very little.

      • “They had plenty of time to shove through more repressive gun control legislation but instead, they chose to expand gun rights to thousands of acres of federal lands and authorized bump stocks.”

        Wrong on the important part – Obama had political capitol to burn when he started out, but he chose to burn it on healthcare. He got his healthcare rammed through by the narrowest of margins, and that cost him *dearly* in the two following election cycles, in the national house and senate, and more profoundly, in over 1,000 state house seats.

        Had Obama chosen to get gun control instead of his healthcare, we would now have an AWB on steroids, likely patterned on Australia’s Port Arthur semi-automatic confiscation…

    • I’d be curious about the source of your “rumors from clerks leaking.” In my experience (both as a former appellate clerk (for a judge on the Fifth Circuit) and as a Supreme Court watcher/practitioner), most of these “rumors from clerks” about pending cases are just garden-variety rumors or speculations that have been embellished to be purportedly “from clerks.”

      Supreme Court clerks have an extremely close and candid relationship with their Justice (it’s the nature of the job), and leaking ANYTHING would be seen, correctly, as a monumental betrayal and breach of that trust. These jobs are essentially unobtainium, and having a Justice hire you for one is the equivalent of winning the lottery for a young lawyer. To reward that by ratting out your boss or being indiscrete about what is said in chambers would cook your professional reputation permanently.

      Also bear in mind that these clerks are typically very ambitious (many want to follow in the path of Roberts or Kavanaugh — former SCOTUS clerks who ultimately got the big chairs), and getting caught leaking anything about pending cases would be the kiss of death to any such ambitions.

      And it’s not like it would be too hard for the Justice in question to figure out who the leak was. A Justice typically has one of his/her three clerks assigned to a particular case. If an accurate rumor about what that Justice is saying / doing / thinking comes out, guess who is gonna be Suspect #1 of either being the source of the rumor or, at the very least, of having “loose lips” about it?

      Even leaking stuff about what happened in chambers years ago (which occasionally happens, especially after the Justice in question is no longer on the Court) is considered to be a betrayal of a near-sacred trust.

      Ergo, take such rumors “from clerks” cum grano salis.

  5. Here’s my prediction: the Supreme Court will dismiss every single one of them. If one or two do not get dismissed they will side with the state.

    At this point I view SCOTUS to be as anti-gun as the 9th circuit. They may not want the complete ban of all gun ownership with the mandated extermination of every single gun owner in the country including every single solitary citizen that opposes the extermination of every single gun owner in the country like the ninth circuit wants even if and wanting the use of nuclear weapons to realize that goal but they’re still pretty close.

    • “Here’s my prediction: the Supreme Court will dismiss every single one of them.”

      If they wanted to, they would have.

      They haven’t, yet. SDASTFU, moron…

  6. And here we see the “gifts” to Americans from the Bush clan keep on giving. Roberts is the single biggest disappointment to sit on the court since I cannot remember when.

    • You must have a short memory.

      I cannot argue that Roberts has not been a squish on some important cases, and I still wish Bush had gone with Mike Lutig over Roberts. But to be honest more often than not Roberts *has* hewn to the GOP / conservative / originalist line.

      *Much* bigger recent GOP SCOTUS failures:

      David Souter — Bush the Elder later admitted that this was one of his biggest mistakes as President. This nomination was down to Souter and Edith H. Jones (my old boss), who were both at the White House for the final interview. The story I have heard was that after the interviews, Sununu wanted Jones but James Baker (EHJ’s mentor and former law partner), while agreeing that EHJ would be a better pick, counseled in favor of Sununu because he was afraid that they would not be able to get an EHJ nomination through the Senate (then under Democratic control, and the rumblings about trying to Bork an EHJ nomination were already starting). Bush took Baker’s advice over Sununu’s, and the rest is history. Whenever push came to shove (heck, whenever push came to raised eyebrows), Souter caved and joined the liberal block; heck, he was part of that block in Bush v. Gore.

      Harry Blackmun — Warren Burger’s longtime best friend, and a reliable conservative when he was a judge on the Eighth Circuit, after getting appointed by Nixon was a conservative justice for a couple of years. Then he must have been dropped on his head or something, because he then proceeded to go off the deep end and authored probably the worst-reasoned constitutional case in US history (Roe v. Wade — among constitutional scholars, even die-hard abortion supporters do not even try and defend it’s “reasoning” as anything other than ad hoc, result-oriented backfill). And he went downhill from there — within a few years, he was a reliable and key part of the Douglas / Brennan / Marshall far left wing of the Court..

      John Paul Stevens — not as bad as Blackmun or Souter, and a huge improvement over Douglas, but especially in later years had clearly drunk the Inside-the-Beltway Kool-Aid. Read his latest pronouncements (from retirement) about the Second Amendment — he makes Roberts look like Thomas.

      Sandra Day O’Connor — major disappointment, especially considering some of the others that might have been appointed at that time. Reagan could have appointed any number of superstar originalists (remember, this was years before the Bork nomination process completely changed the game, so Bork or any number of other serious constitutional scholars would likely have sailed through the Senate). Instead, Ronaldus Maximus went with an intellectually lightweight but politically-correct nominee. [In fairness, SDO is a cruiserweight when compared to Sotomajor.]

      Lewis Powell — like Stevens, he became intoxicated by the Beltway culture. The havoc he created with his “compromise” Baake decision (in which he pretty much invented out of wholecloth the “diversity” justification for race-based discrimination that now has become Gospel in current culture) tells you all you need to know about him.

      Anthony Kennedy — started off strong, and on balance probably voted the right way more often than not. But especially once he realized that he could be, literally, one of the most powerful people in the country by becoming the swing vote rather than just part of the conservative wing of the Court, it really went to his head.

      Bottom line: While the GOP pretty much now has its act together in grooming and vetting judges, from 1968-1992 *every* Supreme Court justice was appointed by a GOP president. While a few of those appointments have been good (Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas), the rest were missed opportunities. Had even *one* of those been reliably conservative, it literally would have changed to course of US legal history.

      • The piece to this puzzle LKB doesn’t include is that the GOP does NOT equal conservative (as defined by current political standards here in the U.S.). Just being LESS statist/Fascist/Progressive doesn’t translate to clear-eyed respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately, for those of us who DO respect what the Founders designed and the document that protects that design, the GOP is the only choice we have.

        • Jon the gun control issue is binary black and white when it comes to party in the last decade. In the well over 100,00 votes relating to gun control within the 100 federal and state legislatures, the thousands and thousand of city and county legislation promulgating bodies, in subcommittee, full committee, amendment process and full body votes, there is a correlation between party and vote around gun control unseen in any issue, even other partisan aligned issues like abortion and immigration.

          It is the most party aligned issue in the US today.

          Finding the occasional Drop of FUDD or fudding in that ocean does not change the overall fact. Actually the fact that that Tiny proportion of fudding is virtually all in purple districts/jurisdictions makes it even more clear this is partisan, not less.

          I am actually centrist on lots of issues and disagree with GOP on many. But I am not crazy enough to contend both parties are the same or even anywhere near each other in gun control when a mountain of data say otherwise

        • “Unfortunately, for those of us who DO respect what the Founders designed and the document that protects that design, the GOP is the only choice we have.”

          Indeed. Politics is always a choice between “the lesser…”, because no one is perfectly consistent.

      • from 1968-1992 *every* Supreme Court justice was appointed by a GOP president

        Firstly you are putting start and end of your range In a cherry pick to eliminate 8 years before Nixon and eight years after Bush one. Removing 26 years of lots of appointments by Democrat presidents.

        Also it isn’t just coincidence, it is known and commented on in academic work on SCOTUS history that the a) Democrats in Senate were more likely than GOP controlled Senates to block a nomination based on ideology and disagreement with past rulings as opposed to competence. And that democrat presidents in the past 50 years have used litmus test more.

        Democrats politicians and senators have also been more openly attacking the court, and at a certain point that blackmail and threats to autonomy of court effects the center right justices.

        • I don’t disagree that since the 1960’s, the dems have been much more openly ideological with both their picks and their confirmation strategies (indeed, it’s only really been since 2016 that the GOP grew a pair and started playing hardball).

          After the Senate set the new ground rules with the Bork hearings, did the GOP make them live by their own rules? Nope, they dutifully went along with the confirmation of RBG, who was just as ideological but not half as qualified as Robert Bork. And then after the shameful treatment by Senate Dems of Miguel Estrada (an exceptionally talented and conservative attorney/scholar nominated to the DC Circuit, which was blocked purely because the Dems feared he’d subsequently be nominated to the Supreme Court), did the GOP learn? Nope, they went along with the least qualified, intellectually lightestweight justice since Goldberg, the self-proclaimed “wise Latina.”

          The point is that from the Eisenhower administration (which gave us Justices Warren and Brennan, remember) until fairly recently, the GOP’s track record on appointing conservative judges has been spotty at best. They didn’t really start taking it seriously until Ed Meese started his judicial vetting project (my old ConLaw prof, Grover Reese, was one of his “investigators”), but those lessons were forgotten by the Bush 1 administration. Had they been more organized (and ruthless), the Court would have changed direction dramatically by the late ‘80’s, when the last of the Warren Court activists died out. Instead, we got a continuation of that Court via Blackmun and Souter, and then perpetrated by the Clinton and Obama nominations.

  7. What would it take for Trump to change the Chief Justice from Roberts to Thomas or Gorsuch or Alito?

      • Of Roberts…Since he won’t likely retire. His passing will be needed. Then the presiding President can appoint a new chief justice. That appointment requires confirmation of the Senate.

  8. This means that the 4 conservatives don’t trust Roberts….so they didn’t give 4 votes to get Certiori for them……….Gun owners better listen up….vote for every single republican on the ballot…..we need Trump to win and we need to keep control of the Senate so it is time to vote republican, no matter how stupid, corrupt or incompetent the individual republican is……Trump needs 51 Republicans to put a Justice on the Supreme Court……more if you count the rinos in the Senate………we have the potential to replace ginsburg and that other doofus left wing Justice….and possibly allow Thomas to retire…but that is only if we get Trump re-elected and keep the Republican majority in the senate with enough votes fo get past the coward republicans in Maine……….go out and vote.

    • While I agree with your exhortations to support GOP candidates, it’s way too early to state for certainty that Roberts has squished on 2A stuff.

      There are any number of reasons why they relisted all the 2A cases. Roberts squishing is just one.

    • If we are to preserve 2A we must stand up and let our elected officials know where we stand. The politicians are just like flags R or D they’re moved by their perception of their constituents. They know where the extremists on both sides stand. The only ammunition in our bandolier is our voice/vote. Too many “good” Americans believe that their voice/vote is mute. We need to impress on those that one voice/vote MATTERS. Speaking up cannot be overestimated and if we are to preserve the bill of rights 1A as we’ll as 2A we must be HEARD both in word and at the polls.

      • ” We need to impress on those that one voice/vote MATTERS.”

        Afraid that just as we cannot seem to find a 2A argument that sways the significant majority of the populace, no political party has discovered a means to consistently increase voting among those eligible.

        Presidential voting always exceeds voting for all other voting, probably because people are going to the polling booths anyway, and there are all the other races to choose from. 2016 was not a banner year for voter turn out. 55% eligible voters actually voted (lowest percent since1996), vs. 64% in 2008.

        Below is a link to US Census data files that report voter participation from November 1968, through 2018.

  9. @CC
    “@mike, you are responding to “miner” aka 2Asux.”

    I knew 2Asux in the Air Force, and he/she/it/whatever ain’t Miner49er.

      • How can you tell, seems like people or things disappear, then reappear under a different name. Exact same arguments and styles.
        Seems bizarre to me. I mean what do most of us say that is so important that it needs to be said under a different name in order to avoid the flack from others.

        • “How can you tell, seems like people or things disappear, then reappear under a different name. Exact same arguments and styles.”

          I disagree, not the same style at all.

          And unless Sam *personally* knew him from USAF days, I seriously doubt he was even an actual pilot, primarily based on how he asked a one-off question about airliner go-around procedures. The way he stated it was as if he was a Pax in the back, not in the front office. It had to to with the ballet of go-around procedures with aircraft of various speed characteristics (the spacing of light singles in the pattern with heavies, when one was ordered to go-around, relatively early in the final approach).

          The question just struck me as being weird, like he had never landed at a a major airport before…

        • “And unless Sam *personally* knew him from USAF days, I seriously doubt he was even an actual pilot, primarily based on how he asked a one-off question about airliner go-around procedures. ”

          Sam personally knew 2Asux, because Sam created the identity, and the “personality” (that’s probably a bit of a stretch there; the personality thing). Sam abandoned 2Asux because Sam got tangled between entities, and got caught.

          “The question just struck me as being weird, like he had never landed at a a major airport before…”

          Not remembering the incident you mention, for Sam or 2Asux. At any rate, Sam never landed at a major commercial airport, except as a passenger. There were three episodes of arriving and departing Hickham as a passenger; military air transport.

    • 2Asux was both an “ex-marine” (wtf is that) and in the Air Force? A veteran is going to contend AR-15 is a “machine gun.” Neither have any military background whatsoever.

      There are at least six identities of same troll here using same exact phrasing, same grammar errors same debunked claims.
      Ok, “Sam”? Lol.

      • You might be thinking of 2Asuxsux.

        I know 2Asux personally, because I created him. IMHO, 2Asux was a better counterpoint than other “trolls”. 2Asux was not “hit-and-run” entity. 2Asux challenged conventional wisdom, especially the notion that sloganeering and chest-thumping had any influence on the real world. 2Asux was all about goading people into being more incisive, more analytical, more agile in their thinking. Yes, an imposter or two tried to use the moniker, but they were poor shadows, and abandoned the charade quickly.

        • Ahhh, now that makes sense.

          You’re pretty much doing the same thing now, in a different wrapper.

          By all means, please keep it up… 😉

        • “You’re pretty much doing the same thing now, in a different wrapper.”

          Yes. It is a little bit easier, not adopting another “voice”.

    • 2asux had some structured, provoking comments. i’ve wondered if samiam isn’t the same mind on a different tilt.

      • “2asux had some structured, provoking comments. i’ve wondered if samiam isn’t the same mind on a different tilt.”

        Sam I Am is the original. 2Asux was the alter ego. After 2Asux disappeared, you may have noticed a remarkable similarity to some of Sam’s commentary, and for the same purpose.

        Cheers, mate.

  10. The Supreme Court under Justice Roberts punts too many cases back to lower courts
    2nd amendment issues need to be resolved based on the Constitution not on emotion & feelings.., Otherwise the next time the country will be closed down by a leftist zealot over gun control or climate change & not to protect American citizens.,

    • Right and a good point for young people just in the boat.
      I studied up on Roberts just before when he was appointed and I know that a lot of people like him and in general, so do I.
      However, he is not above playing politics during certain “political oscillations”.
      If you haven’t studied his his approach, then watch him closely. He is very careful about his “positioning” and legacy and he pays attention to the present times, etc.
      I too have been bored with the booting of the football with issues that are black and white (clear) in law by the courts. States rights arguments seem to tie up courts for decades and that argument goes right back to the pre-constitution debates about national govermental laws and the bill of rights, etc. There was a clause that was repeatedly reintroduced by one politician on states rigjts that opened Pandoras Box, so to speak (I cannot remember his name), but I used to bring him up all the tine when I was young during debates about the early debates of the signing of the constitution. When my memory was fresh and well oiled, lol.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here