Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban

[Yeti]

Like him or not, Mark Smith probably has a better perspective on the timing of cases and why we may need to wait until Fall to see an AR ban or magazine case receive attention than many:

 

[EdDinIL]

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.

Edited May 19, 2026 at 07:36 PM by EdDinIL

[Upholder]

SCOTUS does have the option of holding cases over from one term to the next.  Particularly with Duncan v Bonta (the California Mag ban and confiscation challenge) denying that would put the citizens of California in a very rough spot.  Keep their >10 round mags and become a felon if discovered, or find some means of complying and not keeping any >10 round magazines in state.

 

This would be a travesty beyond anything contemplated to date and regardless of what other "more important" things they may believe are on their plate, would be reprehensible because they were "too busy".

 

[EdDinIL]

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.

[Upholder]

The reason to hold Duncan v. Bonta in particular would be to GVR it (AGAIN!) and not force that terrible choice on the residents of California for something that is clearly unconstitutional and will be ruled as such as soon as they get off their cowardly ***** and make the lower courts obey binding precedent.

 

[Yeti]

On 5/19/2026 at 2:21 PM, EdDinIL said:

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.

Yes, it is frustrating but-- as you note-- they're not going to take 5 or 7 Second amendment cases in the next term.  If they can only take 60-70 total cases a year, we are going to get a couple of 2A reviews here and there given all the other messes to litigate.  It was pointed out elsewhere that legal precedent grows daily and cases take longer and longer to consider as a result.  I hope the Supremes find an effective way to add some horsepower to their teams so the caseload doesn't decrease year by year.

[EdDinIL]

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

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

I don't see it listed today. 

 

Another trip around the track, Jack. 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 6/1/2026 at 3:57 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I don't see it listed today. 

 

Another trip around the track, Jack. 

The sun is the same in a relative way

But you're older

Shorter of breath

And one day closer to deathdenial