Recently, the Supreme Court made a significant move by refusing to hear any new Second Amendment cases, leaving many gun rights advocates wondering about the implications. Here’s a breakdown of what happened and what it means for the future of Second Amendment litigations, based on Mark Smith’s analysis from Four Boxes Diner.
Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions
The Supreme Court issued an “Order List” denying hearings on all cases that could be impacted by the recent Rahimi ruling regarding prohibited persons and sending back all the 922(g) cases to lower courts for further consideration. While this may seem like a setback, Smith believes it’s not necessarily bad news. He highlights that these decisions are part of a larger strategy by the Court.
Understanding the 922(g) Cases
The 922(g) cases involve individuals prohibited from possessing firearms due to factors like illegal drug use or felony convictions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi played a crucial role here. The Court vacated the lower court orders and sent them back for reconsideration in light of Rahimi. This decision emphasized the importance of assessing whether someone is a violent danger before disarming them rather than a blanket prohibition based on past felonies or other factors.
Strategic Implications
Smith points out that while the 922(g) cases are important, they might not be the best cases to push forward for the Second Amendment community right now. The reason is strategic: cases involving non-violent individuals with clean records are more likely to gain sympathy and favorable rulings compared to those involving convicted criminals or drug users.
Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban Cases
The denial to hear the semi-automatic rifle ban cases from Illinois was expected by Smith. He explains that these cases were interlocutory, meaning they hadn’t reached a final judgment. The Supreme Court prefers to make decisions based on complete records, avoiding premature rulings. Smith also mentions the lack of a circuit split on this issue as another reason for the Court’s decision.
Future Second Amendment Cases
Looking ahead, Smith predicts that there will be significant Second Amendment cases in the 2024-2025 term. One likely candidate is a case, which deals with the rights of 18-20-year-olds to acquire firearms from licensed dealers. This case could force the Supreme Court to address whether young adults have full Second Amendment rights.
More to Come!
While the recent Supreme Court decisions might seem like a pause in Second Amendment progress, Smith reassures that it’s part of a broader, strategic approach. The focus remains on building strong cases with sympathetic plaintiffs to secure favorable rulings in the long run. Stay tuned for more developments as the fight for gun rights continues.
For a more detailed analysis, you can watch Mark Smith’s video on this topic and check out his book “Israel Disarmed” for insights into Second Amendment issues.
The Court needs to become a much more proactive body.
No, it needs to become a DEAD body, since it’s as useless as one anyway!
Not enough money to be made finding for the common man.
they are going by past practices by waiting until a case has been decided by whatever lower court it is in before a full hearing. then hopefully there will be a definitive ruling hopefully authored by either justice Thomas or Alito
No, we need to just realize and admit that the legal system is completely broken and must be replaced! The legal system is like an old, bald, dry rotted tire that went flat out on the highway, and is in tatters, so the only thing to do is to replace it with a new one! Stop running up to lick the hand of the one that feeds you, and then one minute later, their boot is kicking you to the curb! Don’t you get it yet that the legal system is devoid of any amount of trust?
Yes we need nine new justices, all liberal graduates of Ivy League indoctrination centers…./sarc…be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.
I’m afraid Roberts will vote correctly, which by itself is great but which allows him to decide who writes the opinion. Alito or Thomas would write a broad treaties covering most aspects – so that lower courts cannot (honestly) decline to follow precedent. Roberts is likely to write something wishy-washy and narrow so that current unconstitutional laws are struck down and will just be rewritten and need to be relitigated. Meanwhile infringements continue 🙁
I think that many do not understand the way appellate courts work. When the Supreme Court denies an appealed case, it is not making a decision on that case but deciding to not consider the case for one or more reasons. It may find that the appellant does not have standing, which means that they feel that the appellant is not affected by the case. They may decide that the case is incomplete at the lower court. They may have other reasons. In any case, denying to hear an appeal is not the same as making a decision on the… Read more »
I see for some the point being made is difficult to understand. Why fight for a criminals rights when there are many who are innocent that are fighting for their Constitutional rights. When so many demand criminals should be punished to the fullest extent, why does that apply to everything except their 2nd Amendment rights. I believe it is a difficult fence to straddle. Better to litigate a case that is easily decided on its merits, historical precedence and alignment with the Constitution than try to overlook continuous failures to obey the laws of an individual and the courts/societies past… Read more »
“…these cases were interlocutory, meaning they hadn’t reached a final judgment.”.
Some people have trouble seeing things as they are written.
I have reached my final judgement…
HLB
Thank you. Very helpful.
Here’s what I am thinking!! That the USSC/SCOTUS is nothing more than a feckless bunch of mealy mouthed imbeciles! And the less they may say on any subject, the better I like it! Who ordains these cretins and idiots to be masters over us? They reversed a “decision” in 2022 that was left standing for 49 years, and then less than a month ago, reversed one that had been in place for 40 years! WTF is wrong with these people, that they cannot or will not keep themselves from making grievous errors?
The job of the USSC is to interpret and apply laws in the light of the US Constitution, NOT in light of “evolving standards of morality”. This may be a problem for three of the Associate Justices who were appointed for their minority status and socially liberal/leftist views. “Intent of the Framers is rarely considered by liberals, who prefer the dicta that “The law means what we say it means”.
Amen brother and it is time we put all of these unconstitutional laws in there proper place which is no longer in existence. If the judges would determine outcome by using the constitution only and not read into it what they THINK it means TODAY, we would not have this problem just like you said.
Good call.
Trump 2024
It isn’t “who” ordains the USSC and empowers it, it is the US Constitution that ordains and empowers the USSC- with 235+ years of established precedent. Most of us- right, left, and middle understand this and learned it in middle school. Those who wish to disempower the USSC need to look to amending the US Constitution, the ultimate and establishing law of the land. It is their job to examine laws, even those 40 or 49 or even 100+ years old. It is within the power of the Congress and the people to amend the Constitution if we don’t like… Read more »
Rectifying a mistake is not a good thing?