It’s Open Season on Gun Laws

[mauserme]

https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-us-supreme-court-colorado-shootings-politics-f919b74dc95062f322389349f35c0e93

 

After Supreme Court ruling, it’s open season on US gun laws

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights threatens to upend firearms restrictions across the country as activists wage court battles over everything from bans on AR-15-style guns to age limits.

 

The decision handed down in June already has led one judge to temporarily block a Colorado town from enforcing a ban on the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic weapons.

...

“The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney.

...

 

The Supreme Court decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public, saying it violates Second Amendment rights. Several other states including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws expected to be directly impacted by the ruling.

...

Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas said. Instead, they should only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

 

“Basically, the Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America,” Lowry said.

 

The Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to take another look at several other cases under the court’s new test. Among them: laws in California and New Jersey that limit the amount of ammunition a gun magazine can hold and a 2013 ban on “assault weapons” in Maryland.

 

Gun rights groups are also challenging similar bans in California, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that responsible and peaceable people across the United States possess by the millions. And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary,” a New Jersey lawsuit brought in June by the Firearms Policy Coalition says, referencing the language of the Second Amendment.

 

The ruling also has come up in challenges to restrictions on gun possession for 18- to 20-year-olds in Texas and Pennsylvania. And it has been cited in a case challenging a federal ban on gun possession for people convicted of nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year behind bars, as well as a prohibition on concealed guns on the subway in Washington, D.C.

...

 

Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh stressed that the Second Amendment does allow for a “variety” of gun regulations. He cited the use of background checks and mental health records as part of a licensing process to carry a gun and noted that states can forbid the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

But the Colorado decision handed down last month, while still early in the process, was a rosy sign for gun rights groups.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Moore, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said he was sympathetic to the town’s goal of preventing mass shootings like the one that killed 10 people at a grocery store in nearby Boulder last year. But Moore said he didn’t know of “historical precedent” for a law banning “a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” so the gun rights groups have a strong case against the ordinance.

 

Encouraged by that decision, Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told The Associated Press that his group was considering going after other gun measures in Colorado, where Democrats hold the majority in the state legislature and the governor’s office.

 

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rhodes said: “The Bruen decision gave us a 4-ton wrecking ball.”

 

 

[richp]

Can't this be an opening for challenging the FOID card?

[Tvandermyde]

The GSL facial challenge to  the FOID is on going. the State via the AG just hired famed fabricator/historian Saul cornell to justify the FOID as constitutional. he filed an 82 page document about his historical analysis on the subject. 

Cornell-Report-Final-2022-Update-Final.pdf

[springfield shooter]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:20 AM, mauserme said:

Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas said. Instead, they should only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

 

In other words, consistent with the supreme law of the land. Oh....the humanity!

[Jeffrey]

On 8/4/2022 at 7:51 AM, springfield shooter said:

 

In other words, consistent with the supreme law of the land. Oh....the humanity!

BUT, BUT, BUT, MY EMOTIONS!!!!

[Flynn]

On 8/4/2022 at 7:31 AM, Tvandermyde said:

The GSL facial challenge to  the FOID is on going. the State via the AG just hired famed fabricator/historian Saul cornell to justify the FOID as constitutional. he filed an 82 page document about his historical analysis on the subject.

 

I have to read over that in more detail vs skimming over it, but it sure appears that he jumps through every hoop trying to add more 'context' to what Bruen said vs what Bruen literally said in the black and white text, aka he basically believes Bruen still allows governmental interest to be used as the test.  It also appears he want to extend the "Founding Fathers" historical context to generations past them and 100s of years past them to obscure small town laws enacted on bias against a segment of the population the government deemd unworthy and not entitled to the freedoms others shared. He also appears to lean heavily on "laws" that were on their face racist and unconstitutional as a historical basis.  He also seems to continue to lean heavily on the word "militia" something that was clearly tossed as not applicable to the individual right protected by the 2nd per Heller.

 

Sadly I can see some liberal courts "buying" his argument so they can ignore the plain test of Bruen, I don't thing the SCOTUS is going to tollerate it one bit though once it gets back there again.

[John Q Public]

I hope JCAR goes too, nothing like a few people in a room deciding to add to laws at their sole discretion. 

[cybermgk]

And now 4th District to rehear the Bianchi Case on the Maryland AWB, by the new Bruen stated scrutiny, by end of year.