{"id":108694,"date":"2025-03-25T08:54:54","date_gmt":"2025-03-25T13:54:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=108694"},"modified":"2025-03-25T08:54:54","modified_gmt":"2025-03-25T13:54:54","slug":"108694","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=108694","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

SCOTUS Still Silent on Semi-Auto, Magazine Bans as More 2A Cases Head Its Way<\/a><\/p>\n

Another Monday has rolled around with the Supreme Court taking no action whatsoever on two cases that have been heard in conference on an almost weekly basis since last December.<\/p>\n

Monday mornings are starting to feel a little like Groundhog Day when it comes to\u00a0Snope\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Ocean State Tactical<\/em>, and I have no idea what’s going on with either of these cases. Both were heard in conference for first time back in December, so even if there’s going to be a denial with a written dissent the justices who are penning their displeasure with the decision not to grant cert have had plenty of time to formalize their objections. The same is true when it comes to a per curium opinion that would find either or both of the challenged laws to be a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\n

It’s possible that the justices are still wrestling with the issue of whether or not to accept one or both of these cases, but that strikes me as pretty unlikely as well. The Court has had\u00a0months\u00a0<\/em>to consider granting cert, and while other Second Amendment challenges like\u00a0Heller\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Bruen\u00a0<\/em>went through multiple conferences before cert was granted, neither of those cases were kept in limbo nearly as long as\u00a0Snope\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Ocean State Tactical<\/em>\u00a0have been.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, there are several other cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms that are slated to be heard in conference for the\u00a0first\u00a0<\/em>time in the coming days and weeks. This Thursday the justices should take up\u00a0Antonyuk v. James<\/a><\/em>\u00a0in their weekly conference. That’s the case that deals with one of the post-Bruen\u00a0<\/em>restrictions that New York put in place in defiance of what the Supreme Court had to say about the right to bear arms; the “good moral character” requirement for a concealed carry license that is essentially serves as a replacement for the subjective “justifiable need” gun owners had to demonstrate under the may-issue permitting regime the Court ruled unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

The justices are also expected to debate a case called\u00a0Price v. U.S.\u00a0<\/a>this week that deals with whether or not possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number constitutes Second Amendment-protected conduct. That case has yet to be fully briefed and decided on the merits, however, and I suspect that the justices will turn it aside, at least for now.<\/p>\n

There are three other cases slated for conference in April as well:<\/p>\n