ANJRPC v Grewal Cert Petition

Kharn · Oct 4, 2021

camo556 said:
Well, not denied.

One big hurdle jumped, now to see if it's relisted for its own consideration or held indefinitely pending NYSRPA.

jcutonilli · Oct 4, 2021

777GSOTB said:
That's funny, as that's exactly what the defendants are trying to convince the court. That being, that the plaintiffs are not having their 2nd Amendment rights violated by their magazine capacity limitation. And they're not, as they can still defend themselves with a 10rd magazine. Because they can exercise self defense, the core right protected under the 2nd Amendment, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, there isn't an injury to ones constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But, you obviously think there's a damage, so please explain exactly what that damage is. How are plaintiffs not able to exercise their right to self defense with 10rd magazines?

Think as you will, I'm siding with Justice Brandeis and that isn't why they denied all those other cases. Yup, it's a complicated explanation isn't it. Commonly used magazines, that are a function of commonly used firearms.

This case has nothing in common with the license application case, and here, they'll deny certiorari for lack of a constitutional injury on both points.

The defendants are trying to convince the court that the plaintiffs have standing? I am not sure that is what the defendants are trying to do.

If standing were really just about they type of injury you are suggesting, why did SCOTUS take both NYSRPA cases (v NYC and v Bruen)? They took both cases because they have/had a way to resolve errors in the lower courts analysis.

The plaintiffs are not claiming that they cannot exercise the 2A with 10 rd mags, they are arguing that their rights are violated because they are limited to 10 rd mags.

Kharn said:
One big hurdle jumped, now to see if it's relisted for its own consideration or held indefinitely pending NYSRPA.

They have relisted all the cases that they are going to relist and this case is not one of them. It appears that they are holding two cases so far, this case and Young. While this case is not exactly like NYSRPA, it appears that they may address the intermediate scrutiny standard which will directly affect this case.

777GSOTB · Oct 4, 2021

jcutonilli said:
The defendants are trying to convince the court that the plaintiffs have standing? I am not sure that is what the defendants are trying to do.

You should reread what I said. You've got it backwards.

jcutonilli said:
If standing were really just about they type of injury you are suggesting, why did SCOTUS take both NYSRPA cases (v NYC and v Bruen)? They took both cases because they have/had a way to resolve errors in the lower courts analysis.

The NYC case violated a 2nd Amendment right as declared in DC v Heller, that being to have for immediate use, a firearm in ones home. This quite clearly includes the ability the get the firearm to the home in the first place. The Bruen case is to settle the circuit split, otherwise, they could have settled it in many of the other similar cases brought before them. And by the way, the court doesn't take circuit splits on the first split amongst the courts.

Or maybe the conservatives are concerned that the liberal government may decide to stack the court, and now is as good a time as any to rule on these issues.

jcutonilli said:
The plaintiffs are not claiming that they cannot exercise the 2A with 10 rd mags, they are arguing that their rights are violated because they are limited to 10 rd mags.

That's the problem, having 10rds for defensive purposes doesn't stop you from defending yourself. Self defense being the core 2nd Amendment right, isn't violated.

jcutonilli said:
They have relisted all the cases that they are going to relist and this case is not one of them. It appears that they are holding two cases so far, this case and Young. While this case is not exactly like NYSRPA, it appears that they may address the intermediate scrutiny standard which will directly affect this case.

It's a waiting game now, I would say.

krucam · Jun 30, 2022

Bump. SCOTUS GVR back to CA3.

Tebonski · Jun 30, 2022

Does this mean that high cap mag ban states must void the bans and accept high cap mags now?

DC-W · Jun 30, 2022

Tebonski said:
Does this mean that high cap mag ban states must void the bans and accept high cap mags now?

No. Prior precedent cannot be relied upon. The laws still need to be successfully challenged in order for them to be struck.

delaware_export · Jun 30, 2022

Sounds like this will Delaware some real pains!!! their brand spanking new AWB and all!!!

Applehd · Jun 30, 2022

I think Del. made a mad dash to get out ahead of the death of the AWB so as to make their subjects have to fight it out in court. I'm not even sure if the Del. Gov. signed it.
Happy to stand corrected, if need be. Not searching.

Tebonski · Jun 30, 2022

Okay, so my interpretation of the above krucam post means that states with high cap mag limits or bans must reconsider with the Bruen holding that their laws must be historical and if passed last week they’re void. Can someone please clarify? What does it mean for Marylanders?

jcutonilli · Jun 30, 2022

Tebonski said:
Okay, so my interpretation of the above krucam post means that states with high cap mag limits or bans must reconsider with the Bruen holding that their laws must be historical and if passed last week they’re void. Can someone please clarify? What does it mean for Marylanders?

Technically it means nothing for Marylanders as there is no active case addressing the MD mag limits. It will likely form the basis of a legal challenge if/when it gets challenged. It seems likely that those limits will be found to be unconstitutional.

lazarus · Jun 30, 2022

jcutonilli said:
Technically it means nothing for Marylanders as there is no active case addressing the MD mag limits. It will likely form the basis of a legal challenge if/when it gets challenged. It seems likely that those limits will be found to be unconstitutional.

Yeah and it wouldn't immediately impact MD either, as NJ is in a different circuit. Now, if/when the 3rd and 9th toss the bans, it sets good precedent for the 4th where Maryland sits to also strike it down. But unless or until it goes back to SCOTUS and they hand down an opinion, there is nothing binding on Maryland until someone files suit against Maryland OR SOCTUS rule it is unconstitutional.

I suspect the 3rd and 9th are going to rule mag capacity limits are unconstitutional in light of the Bruen decision. However, as above. No immediate impact on MD even if they do. We aren't in the same circuit. So someone is going to have to file suit. Now if the 3rd or 9th decide against their own better logic that a magazine ban does not violate the text of the 2A and somehow decides there is some sort of historical precedent around when the 2nd and 14th were passed to have strict capacity limits on a firearm (I can't think of one single example, and there were for SURE multishot weapons when the 14th was passed. Heck, the 1860 Henry could hold SIXTEEN rounds, plus 1 and I am not aware of any legislative bans on them. Gatling guns were around and I am not aware of any general bans on them. Those hoppers held 40 rounds of 58 caliber and fired from a SINGLE ACTUATION OF THE TRIGGER while turning a crank.

Oh Fs guys, that there is practically a machinegun under the definition set forth in the NFA, holding a positive multiplicity of bullets in a thing that WENT UP. All a few years before the passage of the 14th amendment. And they weren't legislatively controlled.

Anyway, it is going to take a lawsuit unfortunately. But hopefully with some quick decisions from the 3rd and 9th under Americans belts, a lawsuit in the 4th against Maryland will be relatively quick.

PS Yes, I know the ATF doesn't regulate gatling guns under the NFA.

delaware_export · Jun 30, 2022

Apparently Delaware signed their awb / mb today!

Governor Carney Signs Package of Gun Safety Legislation - State of Delaware News

DOVER, Del. – Governor John Carney on Thursday signed a package of six gun safety bills surrounded by Members of the General Assembly, members of his Cabinet, advocates and community leaders. This package includes legislation that: Bans the sale of assault weapons (HB 450) Raises the age to...

news.delaware.gov

Bertfish · Jun 30, 2022

When a case is GVR'd do the plaintiffs present new arguments or does the court simply revisit their decision based on evidence already provided and arguments made?

Kharn · Jun 30, 2022

jcutonilli said:
Technically it means nothing for Marylanders as there is no active case addressing the MD mag limits. It will likely form the basis of a legal challenge if/when it gets challenged. It seems likely that those limits will be found to be unconstitutional.

Bianchi v Frosh is against both the AWB and the magazine ban.

Kharn · Jun 30, 2022

DC-W said:
No. Prior precedent cannot be relied upon. The laws still need to be successfully challenged in order for them to be struck.

Or the state concedes defeat and the law is struck so both sides stop accruing legal fees the state knows they will pay under 1988.

Magnumst · Jun 30, 2022

Kharn said:
Or the state concedes defeat and the law is struck so both sides stop accruing legal fees the state knows they will pay under 1988.

You are one of a very few that I read what you post, but this has to be one of the silliest things you have posted. The AG cares not about the states pocket book.

jcutonilli · Jun 30, 2022

Kharn said:
Bianchi v Frosh is against both the AWB and the magazine ban.

No it is only against the AWB.

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown is a FPC Law 2A lawsuit that seeks to strike down Maryland’s “assault weapons" ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5854/attachments/original/1606872456/2020-12-1-bianchi-v-frosh-complaint.pdf?1606872456

Inigoes · Jun 30, 2022

Bertfish said:
When a case is GVR'd do the plaintiffs present new arguments or does the court simply revisit their decision based on evidence already provided and arguments made?

Revisists, there are no more arguments.

Kharn · Jun 30, 2022

jcutonilli said:
No it is only against the AWB.

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown is a FPC Law 2A lawsuit that seeks to strike down Maryland’s “assault weapons" ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5854/attachments/original/1606872456/2020-12-1-bianchi-v-frosh-complaint.pdf?1606872456

Cert petition footnote 1 says they're only challenging the AWB part. Oh well, we wait...

jcutonilli · Jun 30, 2022

Kharn said:
Cert petition footnote 1 says they're only challenging the AWB part. Oh well, we wait...

They may decide to amend the complaint and include the mag ban as well based on the NJ and CA mag ban cases being GVRed. We will need to wait and see what happens in the case.

ANJRPC v Grewal Cert Petition

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Throbbing Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics