Supreme Court refuses to hear any AWB cases for next term.

So SCOTUS did not grant CERT to any AWB/magazine ban cases for next term. There was some hope they would until a couple days ago. To me this is very sad news as they continue to GVR some cases back to the lower courts who do nothing but stall them for as long as possible. Clarence Thomas gave a blistering dissent to the 7th for their ruling on the Illinois AWB via 3 judge panel (2-1 vote) but if they bother to read it they will just tell him to "FOAD old man". Of course the 9th already reviewed the GVRd cases via the Bruen decision with no change in their opinions. In the mean time here in Illinois gun stores and FFLs continue to go close shop.

So those of us living in states with AWB/magazine bans will be living with them for the foreseeable future. Of course it may also be the case that the pro Second Amendment Justices like Thomas and Alito are not confident that they will have the votes to overturn an AWB case with concerns with Roberts and maybe ACB.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,

You nailed it grumpy.
Living in Il. I realize there isn’t jack shit I can do about it. I’m stuck until retirement or it’s overturned. Until Cook county, Lake county. and the dead stop voting in this state, it will remain blue.

Disappointing.

So, as I posted in the gun control thread, I get the upset but I think that mostly this is the court not wanting to rule via injunction vs. after a trial.

The 7th circuit was in injunction status. The 9th Circuit has not heard the case yet post-Bruen, the lower court did. And helpfully, this is after a full trial on the merits.

I'm hopeful that the 9th decision, which I expect to go negative, will be available for appeal in 2025. I don't like waiting either but we are stuck with that.

Yeah, it always seems that with this particular iteration of SCOTUS, they're oblivious sticklers with following correct protocol in the Federal judicial hierarchy. All of these Illinois cases weren't fully "completed" at the circuit level, so why 'jump the gun' to finally get all of the BS things settled at the Supreme Court level?

That's why Californication happened with the final Benitez ruling, which will just linger forever in front of the 9th Circuit. The same will happen in front of the 7th with the Illinois cases. Damn frustrating.

This might be what it takes for SCOTUS to finally take up an AWB case.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....o-the-supreme-court/

SAF Vows to Take Maryland’s Semi-Auto Ban to the Supreme Court
By TTAG Contributor -August 7, 2024

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has announced they will seek Supreme Court review in Bianchi v. Wilkinson, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban, after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

“Today’s decision from the 4th Circuit is unsurprising given their prior decision in Kolbe,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe, much like in Kolbe, the court’s analysis is flawed and that the challenged law is unconstitutional. We will be filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, as this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to settle this debate once and for all.” In the 65-page opinion, judges for the majority wrote: “The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.” Chief Judge Diaz drafted a concurring opinion, with five other judges joining. Judge Richardson drafted a dissenting opinion, with four other judges joining stating: “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal…In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.” Joining SAF in the case are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Field Traders, LLC., the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is named. “The court relied heavily on the distinction between ‘military style’ arms and those appropriate for self-defense use,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This distinction runs completely contrary to the mandates of Heller and Bruen, and now sets the stage for another petition for SCOTUS review of the case.”