SCOTUS Gun Watch - Week of 9/25/23 (Duke University Center for Firearms Law)

[sl8]

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/09/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-9-25-23/

SCOTUS Gun Watch – Week of 9/25/23

By Andrew Willinger on September 25, 2023
Categories: Regulations, Second Amendment, Supreme Court

As the November 7 oral argument in Rahimi approaches, the respondent’s brief is due on Wednesday, September 27. Any amicus briefs in support of the respondent are due one week later, on October 4. The Center for Prosecution Integrity filed a brief in support of the respondent ahead of schedule, on September 22.

The Supreme Court’s annual Long Conference—at which the justices consider petitions for certiorari filed and briefed over the summer—will take place tomorrow, September 26, with an orders list to follow next Monday. The Court will consider two cases we are tracking at the Long Conference: Vullo (which involves a First Amendment retaliation claim by the NRA based on New York state guidance about the reputational risks of doing business with gun-rights organizations), and Kyung Chang (which deals with whether a magazine is a “component part of a firearm” under PLCAA). But perhaps the bigger news in terms of pending petitions is that the Court is now set to consider two cases involving the ATF’s regulation of bump stocks at its October 6 conference: Cargill and Guedes. The government has argued across all bump stock cases (including Hardin, where the respondent filed his response brief on September 20) that Cargill presents the best “vehicle” for the Court to resolve the APA challenges to the ATF’s bump stock rule. For more background on some of the administrative law issues implicated by the bump stock cases, see this earlier blog post.

As the new Supreme Court term starts up, we will resume publishing this update on a weekly basis.

[CORRECTION 9/26/23: The piece has been corrected to reflect that amicus briefs in support of a party are due 7 days after the brief for the party supported, under the Supreme Court’s amicus rules.]

[...]

More at link, including list of petitions.

[AndyS]

1. The minutia that the gun culture relies on and will go to court over

boggles the mind. Are magazines a "component part of a firearm"? The real world answer is simple. The gun will not function as designed without one so it IS a component of a firearm. The gun world answer is far more complicated I'm sure.

The same is "what is a machine gun"? A machine gun fires multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. Okay, a bump stock allows the shooter to put constant pressure on the trigger (one pull) and the stock forces the finger away from the trigger just long enough to reset so because the trigger reset it isn't a machine gun although functionally there is no difference in function.

Now there are "forced reset triggers", a device that mechanically forces the trigger and finger forward to reset the trigger. One pull, constant pressure, many rounds fired but because this little thingie interacts with that dodah and automatically forces the trigger to reset it's not a machine gun.

Meanwhile people die and the police are outgunned. That means the police will eventually carry Military issue M4 and M16 rifles and the gun humper will whine that if the police give up their full auto guns first they can ask for ours.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. You say "minutia", I say potato...

[The Mouth]

4. And I say that *anything* that confounds the restrictionists is a Good Thing

Although I wish SCOTUS would just get it over with and conclude, correctly, that there should be *no* restrictions on a constitutional right. Constitutional carry everywhere, no limitations on firearms or ammunition, and no ability for any state or local entity to restrict a damned thing unless someone is a felon or has a restraining order on them.

[thatdemguy]

2. I read the recent California case, no idea what its called

[quote]Are magazines a "component part of a firearm"? The real world answer is simple. The gun will not function as designed without one so it IS a component of a firearm. The gun world answer is far more complicated I'm sure.[/quote]

This is exactly what the judge said in the case. A semi auto becomes a single shot with out a mag, and thats not how ( single shot ) it is supposed to function. And then he also caught something that blew my mind, not knowing the gun laws in Cali. New guns to be accepted in Cali have to have a magazine disconnect, meaning it wont fire with out a mag in the gun. That law just kind of forced the hand, if the gun not function at all with out the mag then the mag is a needed component.

I also think California arguing that even if you have a mag that hold over 10 rounds yet you only needed to fire 2 or 3 in self defense means you did not use the mag for self defense was kind of stupid. Of course it was used, you just did not need the extra bullets.

[The Mouth]

5. Time to slap down the new silliness in California.

Eventually we'll get to nationwide constitutional carry and the only place guns can be PROHIBITED will be on private property where the owner so chooses. Hopefully throwing out the 1934 and 1968 unconstitutional restrictions along the way.