sikacz wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am
Almost three years on this thread, I’m wondering how the scotus will wiggle out of addressing this. Shall issue should be the standard. The cal roster, mag limits and a few other cal restrictions should be toast as well.
It will be a long while until a roster case makes it back to SCOTUS. There is a new roster case in CA that will likely be held until SCOTUS rules on the New York case. In fact, most (if not all) gun cases in the lower courts will come to a screeching halt awaiting that ruling.
Here's the question Young would have answered:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the holdings of
the First, Seventh and D.C. Circuits, that the Second Amendment does not apply
outside the home at all.
2. Whether the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun carry license for selfdefense violated the Second Amendment.
There is another carry case waiting on Cert, Russell v. New Jersey. It asks:
The Questions Presented are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry arms outside of the
home for self-defense.
2. Whether the government may deny lawabiding citizens their exercise of the right
to carry a handgun outside of their homes
by conditioning the exercise of the right
on showings of need.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1419.html
So there are THREE carry cases at SCOTUS, 1 granted cert (New York) and two pending (Young and Russel). Clearly, there's is a need for SCOTUS to address 1) the right to bear and 2) if such right can be regulated subjectively.
There is a also magazine ban case awaiting SCOTUS's leisure out of New Jersey (Cert request) ANJRPC v. Grewal. Question presented is:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and
confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding
citizens from possessing magazines in common use
violates the Second Amendment.
2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without
compensation of property that was lawfully acquired
and long possessed without incident violates the
Takings Clause.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1507.html