Time for a thread on the amicus brief submitted by the United States (!!!) in Wolford v. Lopez. To my knowledge, it is the first-ever Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in full support of petitioners challenging a gun law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but someone correct me if I am wrong on that assertion. The amicus brief in Heller that the Bush administration did was more wishy-washy (i.e., yes 2A is an individual right but please remand because the analysis was wrong).

Great introduction that goes into the ramifications of the vampire rule. And as our amicus brief will cover, this was intentional. The vampire rule was created by antigun academics who openly stated the aim was to discourage carry.

This is why we insist on calling it the “Vampire Rule” in our briefing, a term invented by @Rob Romano. It is NOT actually a “default” rule, because it is not default for anyone but those carrying with a CCW permit. A whole bunch of other categories of people carrying are exempt. The sudden concern with “private property rights,” from people who have never met regulations affecting private property they didn’t love, is totally phony.

So shocking that Hawaii, a state which almost never issued CCW permits before it was forced to, is trying to undermine Bruen!

I wish they didn’t include the part about “limited to the first question presented,” but they are still the government, and we should be happy to take what we can get. The second question deals with the 1791 vs. 1868 debate. I don’t know why they don’t want that settle too; perhaps they like using those later laws to defend certain federal gun laws they do like.

Wait you guys weren’t carrying chainsaws?

We cite this article too. So glad Professor Leider is now at ATF, what a boon for our rights.

This was actually a Ninth Circuit case! Project 80s v. Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Under the Idaho Falls and Pocatello ordinances, residents who wish to receive uninvited door-to-door solicitors must post a ‘Solicitors Welcome’ sign. The government’s imposition of affirmative obligations on the residents’ first amendment rights to receive speech is not permissible.”).

Sorry for the delay, duty called. Yes, most of the purported “analogues” only applied to private land NOT held open to the public, and were anti-poaching efforts.

It’s still so crazy to me that the Ninth Circuit panel cited a goddamn Black Code to uphold the Vampire Rule, then when given the opportunity to correct that en banc, said “nah.”

It was so weird how the panel found the narrowest possible technical grounds to uphold the Hawaii law but not California’s version. It would have been so easy to go with what every other court has said, even antigun courts like the Second Circuit, and strike down the vampire rule. It’s like they wanted to create a split. Thanks, I guess? We’ll see if SCOTUS cares.

I wish they’d just come out and ask SCOTUS to grant cert in Snope, but I suppose that would be a bit improper given the amicus deadline passed before the new administration began. Still, they walk right up to that line. Hopefully, they do an amicus brief for Duncan once our cert petition is filed.

The brief concludes by arguing that the Court should not refuse to grant cert because of the interlocutory posture. Obviously, I strongly agree and I am so glad they said this. The whole “needing a complete record” is a bullshit excuse to not take a case in the context of constitutional challenges. The facts are rarely in dispute, these are purely LEGAL disagreements. A more “complete record” adds nothing but years of legal expense for nonprofit plaintiffs.

Excellent brief by the Solicitor General & Co. Thank you @AAGHarmeetDhillon, and everyone else over there. Will it be enough? Who knows, maybe SCOTUS will still balk due to the interlocutory posture. But as I said earlier, if a brief from the solicitor general doesn’t get this across the line, nothing will.