Supreme Court Says Several Gun Cases Deserve a New Look

[In It to Win It]

AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday that gun cases involving restrictions in Hawaii, California, New Jersey and Maryland deserve a new look following its major decision in a gun case last week.

In light of last week’s ruling — which said that Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home — lower courts should take another look at several cases that had been awaiting action by the high court, the court said. Those cases include ones about high-capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban and a state law that limits who can carry a gun outside the home.

In the New York case, the court’s conservative majority gave lower courts new guidance about how to evaluate gun restrictions. The justices rejected a two-step approach appeals courts had previously used as having one step too many. They said courts assessing modern firearms regulations should just ask whether they are “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

The high court also told federal appeals courts to revisit cases involving laws in California and New Jersey that limit the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold. A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

[Lovie777]

1. They are rushing ...

[Amishman]

2. They aren't. Thomas has waited decades for this

He knew what he was doing when he changed the scrutiny test for 2A issues in the Bruen decision. This is the beginning of that change playing out. It will take years for case after case to work their way through the legal system, but the outcome will be castrating gun safety in this country.

These cases were his real targets with how he wrote that decision, and the scrutiny charge a far bigger deal than the immediate outcome for carry permits

[Lovie777]

7. Again they are rushing ..

[Amishman]

10. Not sure how use of a strategy dependent on many cases over years is rushing

They remanded these case down to a lower court for a do over (with an impossible to meet new standard). That is the slow route.

If they were rushing, they'd just have taken up the case directly and overturned the laws they clearly want to overturn.

[Efilroft Sul]

3. "The Pelican Brief" deserves a rewatch, too.

[Phoenix61]

4. Bali is looking better every minute. nt

[Samrob]

5. WTF. So they want to take away "States Rights" that they just gave reversing Roe?

People, we have to end up with a majority in the House and 67 Senators...some how.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Enforcement in NJ is done by the State Police

What federal force will SCOTUS use to overthrow states rights this time?

[thatdemguy]

9. They dont have one, but they have 1983 claims

Not 100% sure what that means but I have seen it quoted a few times. I think it means an official who goes against the law open under the cover of being a state/county or fed official themself to law suits that they are not shielded by immunity and they are personally responsible for any monetary damages.

https://www.wikilawschool.net/wiki/Section_1983_Litigation

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. Let people open carry in the court room then

Sauce that's good for the goose...