It seems the Supreme Court really doesn’t like to delve into the Second Amendment unless it really really has to. They’ve been kicking the gun rights can down the road on a couple of very important cases for months now.
The Court first distributed both Snope (Maryland’s semi-auto rifle ban) and Ocean State Tactical (Rhode Island’s “high capacity” magazine ban) for conference back in January…and they’ve been re-listing both cases weekly ever since. That’s frustrated both gun rights advocates and Court watchers.
First that was taken by Court watchers as a bad sign if you’re on the side of gun rights. The longer the status of both cases have been postponed, some now see that as possibly a good sign. But guessing what that really means is like trying to read tea leaves when you’re holding a cup of coffee.
Now, the Firearms Policy Coalition is asking the Court to wade into yet another thorny 2A thicket. FPC won a judgement in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals last year striking down Minnesota’s ban on gun sales to adults under 21 years of age. But as the gun rights org notes, there’s now a circuit court split on the issue. The only way to resolve that is for SCOTUS to get involved and decide the issue. If, that is, they can be persuaded to do so.
Here’s FPC’s release announcing their cert filing . . .
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear its Worth v. Jacobson case, agreeing with the State of Minnesota that the Court should take up the State’s petition in order to affirm FPC’s victory below and eliminate unconstitutional age-based bans across the country. FPC’s Supreme Court brief and the Eighth Circuit’s unanimous decision in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/worth.
“While the court below correctly held that Minnesota’s age restriction on carrying firearms is unconstitutional, [Minnesota] is correct that the federal courts of appeal have divided over the constitutionality of such laws,” argues FPC’s response brief. “Whether the government may prevent peaceable 18-to-20-year-old Americans from acquiring or carrying firearms is a question of fundamental importance, and Respondents agree that it merits this Court’s review.”
“This case presents the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to take up this incredibly important issue and hold that all peaceable adults have the right to keep and bear arms. In case after case, FPC and our allies have successfully shown that these age-based bans are unconstitutional and cannot survive scrutiny. The Court should grant review and affirm the Eighth Circuit’s well-reasoned decision,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs.
The Worth case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by three FPC members, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Second Amendment Foundation. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.
MASSIVE BREAKING NEWS: AG PAM BONDI FORMS 2A RESTORATION WORKING GROUP…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZterNiVwyhc
SCOTUS’s thumbs must be sore after spending so much time up their asses.
“FPC and our allies have successfully shown that these age-based bans are unconstitutional and cannot survive scrutiny”
Then why do the courts keep allowing bans on ~25% of the population to continue, only carving out “protections” for a tiny 2% of the population?
Because Bruen is all of 3 years old and most of the cases involved are substantially older and many of the infringements were built up over 120 years+? Unfortunately shit takes time and we have a lot of slimy judges so it is likely to take longer still unless you are willing to go the blood and iron route.
With Roberts and ACB aligning themselves with the 3 professed liberals on the Court, don’t expect anything good regarding your 2A rights coming from SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has become the guarantor of the Government’s rights – not yours.
SC justices, and all judges everywhere, are, at the core, politicians. It is how they are chosen. Expecting the judiciary, at any level, to be absolutely unbiased, or agenda-free, is childish foolishness. When the politicians (and sometimes voters) are the source of the judiciary, politics cannot be avoided in making choices. Is it at all sensible/logical to expect perfect results from a system of flawed humans?
Justice is in the eye of the beholder (it depends on whose ox is being gored). We want what we want, when we want it, and not when we don’t want it. In the end, judges and justices end up parsing the principle established by Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”