This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 09/06/2026 2:23:38 PM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court could decide multiple Second Amendment cases as appeals accelerated since it decided two cases about gun rights in June.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County on June 30, and announced Friday the hearing would occur on Dec.2, taking up a Second Amendment challenge to a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms passed by the Illinois locality days after issuing rulings on two Second Amendment cases. The high court, though, received four petitions asking it to hear cases since the end of July, while it has considered taking up one case for a record number of conferences.
The Supreme Court considered taking up Duncan v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, for 23 conferences, a record, and will likely be debated when the justices have their first conference of the upcoming term on Sept. 28. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled New Jersey’s similar magazine ban unconstitutional in an “en banc” (heard by all judges on the court) decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey that struck down the state’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“Supreme Court Asked To Hear Case On Concealed Carry Across State Lines”
“A petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a Second Amendment case from a trucker argued that Minnesota’s refusal to honor out-of-state concealed carry permits violated the constitutional provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Liberty Justice Center first filed the lawsuit in January 2025 against Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson over the state’s refusal to recognize the out-of-state permits of two truck drivers, David A. McCoy II and Jeffrey A. Johnson Sr. In the petition filed Aug. 24, the group claimed Minnesota’s approach was turning the Second Amendment into a “second-class right.””
The caseload would be simplified if the Supreme Court decided that the right cannot be infringed.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
The commies are determined to bog down the courts. They are out of ideas. They are done, finished, history!!!
Kavanaugh's call for "percolation" after Bruen through the lower courts was like saying, "Let's see just how dishonest the circuits are," and ignored the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
Despite the legal doctrine actually being quite clear when Heller and Bruen are combined, we still have a situation where half the states already recognize the reasoning behind those cases and so give rise to no "percolation" because there is no infringement, and until the 3rd Circuit opinion just issued, the other half of states have no 2nd Amendment because the left-wing circuits never met a gun restriction they didn't like.
The legal doctrine from Heller and Bruen combined is: 1) any restriction on an arm is presumed an infringement, and the state must argue based on the (largely absent) legal "history and tradition" of arms restrictions prior to reconstruction that it is not; 2) arms in common use cannot be banned.
There are also a whole slew of other restrictions specifically designed as impediments such as requiring a license to exercise a right (Illinois' FOID), storage requirements, insurance requirements, etc., plus bans on firearm parts (magazines, which are really "arms") and accessories like laser sights (banned in Illinois).
My worry is that crapweasel Roberts or Barrett may desire to narrow the decision to certain arms or certain states or just the plaintiffs, so this whole circus will take even longer to resolve.
“The caseload would be simplified if the Supreme Court decided that the right cannot be infringed.”
Exactly. They always leave a loophole that allows the democrats to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The sensitive places exception is one of those loopholes.
It’s going to be bogged down for the next 100 years. Effn dem/communists.
It’s time for the court to say that States rules come second...that everyone has the right to bear arms and state lines cannot be a cutoff....i.e....it has to be recipricol between ALL the states.
“It’s time for the court to say that States rules come second...that everyone has the right to bear arms and state lines cannot be a cutoff....i.e....it has to be recipricol between ALL the states.”
I agree. The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right recognized by our Constitution. Democrats can’t say “well, we don’t recognize it” so guns are against the law in our state or county. That’s now how rights work.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
ClearCase-guy nails it!
While this would seem to be a ‘no brainer’, the lefturds will not walk away without yet another fight.
“The caseload would be simplified if the Supreme Court decided that the right cannot be infringed.”
Exactly. But so much money would be lost in future legal fees associated with those who feel they need to ask a court if they have the right to protect themselves, family and home while also harvesting wild game for sustenance.
It is an inalienable right.
You left out McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
SCOTUS ruled in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) that 2A only restricts the federal government, not the state governments. States could trample on 2A whenever they wished.
The McDonald decision held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states, reversing Cruikshank.
Without the McDonald decision, the entire Bill of Rights isn’t worth the paper it’s written it on because the states are under no obligation to honor it.
“The caseload would be simplified if the Supreme Court decided that the right cannot be infringed.”
____________________________________________________________
No right is absolute. Every provision of our Constitution can be infringed under the right legal circumstances.
Thanks- I had forgotten about McDonald. You are right, without holding the 2nd is also incorporated, none of the others would have occurred.
“It’s time for the court to say that States rules come second...that everyone has the right to bear arms and state lines cannot be a cutoff....i.e....it has to be recipricol between ALL the states.”
I hate the words, “reciprocal” and “reciprocity” - they infer that a permit must be issued and carried. Even Federal/National Parks allow individual states to limit the carrying of weapons in them - which means the Federal Government is kneeling before such states. The Second Amendment says and means that our rights to bear arms shall not be infringed - period.
Getting a permit is NOT infringing...
Denying a permit for no special reason is infringing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.