EdDinIL

For those not on Twitter/X, here's the full text of SAF's tweet/post: SAF, FPC, Maryland Shall Issue and individual plaintiffs just filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take up Novotny v. Moore and strike down Maryland’s web of carry bans — stores, gas stations, parks, transit, demonstrations, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, and the default ‘no guns on private property open to the public’ rule. The 4th Circuit upheld most of it. This case is the perfect vehicle to clarify what ‘sensitive places’ actually means under Bruen.

Petition (265 pages long): https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Novotny-cert-petition-5.20.26.pdf

Dem 1: Are those pests from IC still watching? Dem 2: Yep. Dem 3: Ok, it's my deal then...

In this case, though, IC is opposing it and not remaining neutral. Does IC oppose it because it opposes ERPO in general and just wants them gone?

Google says that is NOT correct. It says that your duty station qualifies as a home state. You can buy a gun in your duty state, or at least have it transferred to you there. I found a reference to an ATF page clarifying that, but the link points to a page that's not found, even if I do the search directly on the ATF's site. Not sure how that plays with the FOID, though. (Keeping the reply thread-adjacent!) (edited for clarity)

The legal precedent that is growing daily is the ability for lower courts to degrade or nullify legal precedent.

In the next five years, Plaintiffs Christopher Laurent, Kim Dalton, and Justin Tucker will be allowed to own firearms without a FOID after using the People v Brown as a precedent.

Why would they hold over the existing cases if they intend to take others? They're not going to take five or seven 2A cases in the next term. Obviously it's all speculation on our part, and we're going to keep waiting until the water boils whether we like it or not.

For those who didn't watch, Mark says SCOTUS has more important things to do. Not purple. Edit 2 - Man, he's getting shredded in the comments. One key thing he said, he thinks SCOTUS is waiting for Barnett (7th) and Cheeseman (3rd), and who knows when those cases are going to be concluded, especially if they're waiting on other cases to be finished. I assume that also means he thinks Viramontes is going to get denied, but he didn't specifically say it.

Cert denied.

They want time for the Democrats to win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency so they can pack the courts. Then the now-minority pro-freedom Justices can dissent the heck out of every anti-2A ruling and feel good about themselves.

Rehearing petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5961/408399/20260508112159311_scan_ajimenez_2026-05-08-11-20-43.pdf

FATF

Officially there is no orders list expected on Monday. There were no conferences this past Friday. I assume this case and all the others will be scheduled for conference on Thursday the 14th. That said, SCOTUS could surprise us.