Information From Sequeal Watch SCOTUS Blog
While we may have been disappointed that the United States Supreme Court didn’t take up and bring the hammer down on New York for their egregious infringement of the 2nd Amendment in their transportation ban and hasty amendment to said ban trying to weasel out of consequences, that is far from the only case that the court could use as a jumping off point. Several cases are sitting and waiting for judgement by the bench and they could have the desired effect in perhaps an even more poignant manner than the New York case. Because at the end of the day, New York did change the rule and a ruling on a rule that was no longer in effect may have unintended negative consequences down the road.
But here are several 2A cases that we could see in its stead and we know we have an eager series of justices who could take them up.
Mance v. Barr, 18-663
Issue: Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Rogers v. Grewal, 18-824
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Pena v. Horan, 18-843
Issue: Whether California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Gould v. Lipson, 18-1272
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Cheeseman v. Polillo, 19-27
Issue: Whether states can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Ciolek v. New Jersey, 19-114
Issue: Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need,” which, as defined, does not include general self-defense, for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Worman v. Healey, 19-404
Issue: Whether Massachusetts’ ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes unconstitutionally infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Malpasso v. Pallozzi, 19-423
Issue: In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry-permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Culp v. Raoul, 19-487
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Wilson v. Cook County, 19-704
Issues: (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether a regulation bans (a) weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (b) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (c) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.
(relisted after the May 1, May 15, May 21, May 28 and June 4 conferences)
Any one of these could drastically change gun rights on the national level and start the dismantling of restricted state prohibitions. Blows like the striking of the magazine and ammunition prohibitions in California and New York’s rapid rewording of their transportation rule show that these people know that their rules are infringements and violate the constitution. The authors and enablers were simply hoping that not enough pressure would build to challenge them.
