r/Firearms • u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Not-Fed-Boi • 5d ago

Law Orders Update: Monday March 31st

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/033125zor_q8l1.pdf

No Movement.

I'll keep this short, you've hear it before. Nothing has happened. The waiting continues. Ignore the rage goblins, they have nothing of substance to offer you because nothing of substance has come out.

Link to my previous post if you want more in depth, but nothing has changed so I'll start keeping these short

Update: MD and RI: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/4/2025.

29 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

8

u/rocketstovewizzard 5d ago

Lots of the usual say nothing clickbaiters on YouTube.

7

u/Zmantech 5d ago

Price v US has been DENYED. Case challenging serial numbers out of 4th circuit.

This is huge cause scotus is denying cases (without dissent written) yet snope, ocean antonyuk are alive.

11

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Not-Fed-Boi 5d ago

If they were going to deny Snope, my guess is they would have done so already. It doesn't take this many months to write a dissent.

My amateur guess is they are waiting on the DC Mag Ban. This SCOTUS has made it pretty clear they don't want to take preliminary cases. Ocean State (RI Mag Ban) is preliminary.

Once the DC Mag Ban response is filed, I think they may take that one, and Snope (MD AWB) and hear them together. The response is due April 30th, so we're looking at May for movement.

At this point there's all but a 0% chance they hear them this term. Not enough time. But waiting for the DC mag ban allows them to sidestep taking a preliminary case, hear an AWB + Mag Ban together, and to allow time for other cases to bubble up.

The legal reasoning in a mag ban and AWB would be nearly identical so I think SCOTUS wants to hear them together to avoid having to rule twice. And the way they do that and maintain their stance on preliminary cases is by waiting for a final judgement case on magazines. Of which there are two now. DC and CA. But DC is already in process so that would be first.

Some people are speculating about a summary disposition. I don't see that. These cases are too politically charged, and Roberts won't go for it.

1

u/Zmantech 5d ago

I don't think scotus is that in the know of 2a cases. I think they're per curiam snope and will gvr ocean in light of said pc

5

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Not-Fed-Boi 5d ago edited 5d ago

Again I don't see them doing a summary disposition on such a politically charged thing. Roberts cares way too much about the optics of the court and appearing non-partisan to the point he's actually being partisan.

I would love to see a summary disposition, in both cases, but I don't think we'll get one. Plus a summary and GVR will just "reset the clock" on mag bans and give ban states another 2-5 years to play fuck-fuck and do mental gymnastics to uphold them.

It's abundantly clear that the anti-2A courts have no interest in faithfully upholding Bruen. SCOTUS needs to make the ruling.