I will post an update later in the week listing those scheduled for this Friday's conference.

The following petitions were denied. Several dockets are unchanged. The rest were relisted to this Friday's conference.

Philip J. Marquis, Petitioner v. Massachusetts - Petition Denied

QUESTION PRESENTED

  1. Does Massachusetts’ firearms licensing regime, which grants a police colonel the power to deny any nonresident traveler a temporary firearms license based upon that officer’s judgment of “unsuitability,” violate nonresident travelers’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and to interstate travel?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5280.html

Steven Perez, Petitioner v. United States - Petition Denied.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Petitioner was convicted of interstate transport and receipt of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), and conspiracy to commit this offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In affirming the judgment of conviction, the Second Circuit held that an individual’s “acquisition” of firearms was merely an “ancillary” Second Amendment right. Because this was the case, it adopted and applied a “meaningful constraint” test also used by the Ninth Circuit: “[R]egulations on the means of acquiring, transporting, and storing firearms only implicate the text of the Second Amendment if they meaningfully constrain the right to possess and carry arms.”Accordingly, the questions presented are:Does the Second Amendment presumptively protect an individual’s right to acquire firearms?Is the “meaningful constraint” standard applied by the Second and Ninth Circuits to determine the constitutionality of regulations concerning“ancillary” Second Amendment rights correct?

Robert D. Schneider, Petitioner v. United States - Petition Denied.

The question presented is:Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to cor-rect an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-685.html

Marcus Turner, Petitioner v. United States - Petition Denied.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional?

II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-6220.html

  • I saw NAGR v Lamont (CT AWB/Mag ban) distributed for Jan 23 (next Friday). So probably Duncan v Bonta (CA Mag ban) and Viramontes v. Cook County (IL/Cook County AWB) won't move this Friday and potentially a chance to consolidate all these cases?

    parent

    I choose to believe.

    parent root

    I really believe that if the CT bans are struck down, the state will ignore the court and the bans will stay in place. Our state legislators are insanely anti gun and there is absoloutely no chance they will allow the AWB to end. They will openly defy the court.

    parent root

    Is this possible? I remember when Bruen was ruled those states at least "appear" to follow the judgement before setting new different barrier?

    I hope at least there would be a free week/month/year before those states find a different path to bypass the judgement.....

    parent root

    I mean anything’s possible right? Laws only exist so far as they can be enforced. They’d be held in contempt of court, so fines and penalties, I think potentially getting arrested?

    parent root

  • Damn I’m bummed the MA one was denied. This is a huge problem for NH/Maine residents who have to drive through MA to get anywhere. 

    parent

    I watched the Washington Gun law live stream the other day. It seems he and the person he was interviewing were pretty sure the other case out of Maryland had far more compelling facts.

    parent root

    This is the case they talked about.

    Eva Marie Gardner, Petitioner v. Maryland

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED

    1. Does Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597U.S. 1 (2022), by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances?

    2. Did the Maryland courts’ reliance on a video showing the assailant’s calm demeanor upon police arrival, without his testimony or other witnesses to corroborate the incident, while disregarding Petitioner’s evidence of the assailant’s PIT maneuver, vehicular coercion, and physical advance, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to present a self-defense claim?

    3. Does Maryland’s refusal to recognize Petitioner’s valid Virginia concealed carry permit for interstate travel violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, or the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A), despite the firearm being loaded and Pennsylvania’s non-recognition of the permit at the time of the incident?

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-5961.html

    parent root