SAF Issued file new law suit challenging common semiautomatic rifle ban

[pcfixer]

Bump. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-902.html

 

[cantstop]

Tomorrow is a local DC holiday - Emancipation Day (April 16th). It is observed on the closest weekday if the 16th falls on a weekend. That's also why taxes aren't due until Monday 4/18.

Not sure if Barron Frosh needs to reply today, tomorrow, or has until Monday to try to delay again. SCOTUS seems to have their own calendar.

 

[camo556]

Not a federal holiday on the SC calendar:

Supreme Court of the United States Home

Brief is due tomorrow. We will see what he has to say for himself.

 

[pcfixer]

Apr 15 2022

Brief of Brian Frosh, et al. in opposition submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-902/221136/20220415132433423_21902%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

I'm reading......

 

[pcfixer]

Interesting comments on page 32!

quoted
Certain restrictions, of course, may so fundamentally strike at the core of a right that they could not survive any form of review. The Court confronted that situation in Heller, when it concluded that under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,” the handgun ban failed. 554 U.S. at 628.

But a wholesale abandonment of standards of review in favor of a single categorical inquiry would unjustifiably depart from this Court’s general approach to enumerated rights and elevate the Second Amendment to a preferred position in the Constitution that neither text, history, nor tradition supports.

 

[elwojo]

I love the incoherent rationales Frosh puts forward:
1. the semi automatic ban increases public safety from mass shootings
2. the ban is not an effective ban because guns similar to AR-15s (including some AR-15s) are still legal
3. given the ban fails to protect against these firearms "preferred for mass shootings", this ban is ineffective and therefore does not help public safety, which means that it fails intermediate scrutiny tests since it offers no protection to government interests.

However, this is all contingent on NYSRPA v Bruen. If that ruling doesn't change the standards used to judge the Second Amendment, then the case doesn't change and therefore fails.

I personally think that no matter the outcome of Bruen, this doesn't meet cert because the court will give more time for lower courts to follow Bruen's ruling.

 

[camo556]

blah blah blah, the last paragraph: The court may wish to hold for NY Guns.

Which is exactly what will happen.

 

[pcfixer]

April 22nd and April 29th are conference days.

Search

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of “Arms” that are in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[krucam]

From the Opposition Brief. BS Flag needs to be raised...30 rounds in 5 seconds, 6 rounds/sec....

The
civilian versions of the AR-15 (and other assault rifles,
like the AK-47), the court explained, are “semiautomatic
but otherwise retain the military features and
capabilities of the fully automatic M16 and AK-47.” Id.
at 125. The difference between selective fire and semiautomatic
firing, the court found, has limited relevance:
because of the rapid rate of fire of the AR-15, a
shooter can empty a 30-round magazine “in as little as
five seconds.”

 

[DC-W]

That's not incorrect.

 

[camo556]

Also the fact that they have "military features" could be a feature not a bug. Everytown** should be careful what they wish for since the historical tradition at the founding was that people showed up for militia service with personal weapons.

**I assume Everytown wrote that since Bloomberg pwns everyone in this state.

 

[jcutonilli]

April 22nd and April 29th are conference days.

Search

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of “Arms” that are in common use for lawful purposes?

They are conference days, but the petitioners have not submitted a reply brief. I suspect this case will be scheduled for conference 12 May or 19 May.

 

[jcutonilli]

From the Opposition Brief. BS Flag needs to be raised...30 rounds in 5 seconds, 6 rounds/sec....

That's not incorrect.

While the data and the conclusions may not be correct, it was correctly quoted from the 4th circuit opinion. I suspect the petitioners will not raise the issue though. The arguments they make are not dependent on details like this.

 

[press1280]

blah blah blah, the last paragraph: The court may wish to hold for NY Guns.

Which is exactly what will happen.

I think so as well. They are currently holding the NJ mag ban case, so holding this one would not be unusual.

 

[pcfixer]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-902/222197/20220429130512504_21-902%20Bianchi%20Cert%20Reply.pdf

Me. State's compelling interest in public safety by Frosh is no longer.....

Petitioner's - Respondents’ intermediate-scrutiny analysis entirely fails to account for the public-safety harm these bans cause by inhibiting self-defense. Like the handguns in Heller, “[t]here are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a [semi-automatic rifle] for home defense,” 554 U.S. at 629

Really in Brief of Oposition...
"And Maryland is aware that, as an alternative to arguments based on text, history, and tradition, the parties and the United States’ briefs in Bruen made arguments based on the application of the standard of review to..."

 

[Bigsawer]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-902/222197/20220429130512504_21-902%20Bianchi%20Cert%20Reply.pdf

Interesting read. I understand the references to sources throughout the piece but what is BIO# ?

 

[jcutonilli]

Interesting read. I understand the references to sources throughout the piece but what is BIO# ?

Brief in Opposition (MD response)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-902/221136/20220415132433423_21902%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

 

[DC-W]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.

 

[jcutonilli]

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.

They are conference days, but the petitioners have not submitted a reply brief. I suspect this case will be scheduled for conference 12 May or 19 May.

As predicted.

 

[DC-W]

As predicted.