It's now June... New York's state Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was argued in November.
Traditionally, cases argued early in the October to October US Supreme Court term, have their decisions released by late June.
It is largely expected that we are going to see something like a 6-3 majority in favor of more clearly defining the 2nd Amendment, as ...PROPERLY... protecting the individual right to keep and and bear arms, both inside and outside the home (and in all but certain specially protected places, such as inside court houses and police stations); for all lawful purposes; and applying either strict scrutiny, or at least a heightened and very restrictive interpretation of intermediate scrutiny.
In fact we may even see a 6-1-2 split, with Kagan (Kagan is known to be an occasional recreational shotgunner, and is thought to largely agree with Scalias interpretation of the second amendment, just allowing for some more or more restrictive gun control under a fairly strict rational basis or a looser intermediate scrutiny standard... Hell, we may even see 5-2-2 or 5-1-1-2, with Roberts and Kagan joining in concurrence, or Roberts writing a separate concurrence as well) siding with the majority but issuing a separate opinion, allowing for more and stricter gun control, with a less strict standard of judicial review than the majority opinion, or applying a narrower scope than the majority decision, or both.
...(Or at least within the scope of the NYSRPA v. Bruens issues under review. They may write their decision to broadly apply to any type of restriction on the second amendment, or they may limit that scope to simply carry laws, requiring separate litigation under whatever standard of security is promulgated, to deal with other types of gun control)...
We know that at least Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Coney-Barrett, are all in favor of strict scrutiny on the second amendment generally, and that Alito has indicated that he supports either strict scrutiny or a very scrupulous intermediate scrutiny standard on the second. If a four justice bloc wrote the majority opinion in favor of strict scrutiny, he would likely sign on to that opinion, for an outright majority opinion imposing strict scrutiny on the second (or at least within the scope of review of that decision anyway, whatever that scope may be)...
This could mean that ANY law or regulation... federal, state, or local... burdening, restricting, or limiting that right; would be automatically presumed to be unconstitutional by default; unless it affirmatively and clearly passed a very strict constitutional test.
In the case of strict scrutiny, such test requiring that any such restriction, burden, or limit imposed on that right:
1. Effectively serve a highly compelling, overwhelming, or critical, state interest or interests
2. Such interests; and any restrictions, limits, or burdens on the right in serving such interests; be as specifically and narrowly defined and tailored as reasonably possible
3. In order to effectively serve such interests, without unduly limiting, restricting, or burdening the right; outside of such narrowly and strictly tailored and defined compelling interests
...And that...
4. Such compelling interest cannot be effectively served in any other way, impacting, limiting, or burdening the right, less than the method in question.
5. The burden of proof is on the state, to show the elements above.
Meaning that we may be as little as a week or two away from invalidating most gun control measures, in the 11 states now implementing significant gun control laws.
... Or at least starting the process of doing so, since those 11 states are likely all going to fight every step of the way until the supreme court decides just exactly how far the states, and the federal government, can go; in restricting the second amendment.
We would also be a few weeks from preventing most of what Democrats are trying to force through right now in terms of gun control.
If we are able to get a strict scrutiny, or heightened intermediate scrutiny standard of judicial review put in place then... That's the whole ballgame, though it will certainly take many years of additional litigation to get there.
I would expect that federally, the national firearms act of 1934, and the gun control act of 1968, will need to be revised significantly at the very least, if not repealed entirely and replaced with something much more rational and less restrictive.
Simply put, there is no compelling state interest served in heavily and burdonsomely restricting short barreled rifles and shotguns, firearms sound suppressors or silencers, or "any other weapons", such as novelty firearms, firearms that do not look like firearms, or firearms that don't meet conventional categories or definitions. Millions of these items have legally and commonly been in civilian non law enforcement hands for 88 years, with less than a dozen violent crimes commited using them. There is nothing that makes such items specially dangerous, or more likely to be used in crime, or any other factor that even COULD present a compelling government interest in restricting them.
Similarly, no compelling state interest is served by banning firearms sales across state lines between private citizens and licensed dealers, and requiring a dealer to dealer transfer, then a separate dealer to end user transfer. Any federally licensed firearms dealer should be able to sell any firearm, legal in any state, to anyone allowed to own such a firearm in their home state.... Even if neither party are in their home state at the time of sale or transfer, so long as they meet the laws and requirements of the state in which the sale occurred, the state of residence of the end purchased, and the state in which the federal license holder has their listed primary location of business (including federal and state background checks as may be required).
... I personally think that should apply to private sales a well, but there's good arguments that the states could make that private citizens may not know, and follow, the laws and requirements of other states etc... etc...
Also, I think there's very good arguments that no compelling state interest is served in entirely banning the production of new fully automatic weapons for civilian sale (as the ATF has done by deliberately misinterpreting the law since 1986); as there are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic weapons in civilian non law enforcement hands, with literally less than a dozen crimes having been committed using those lawfully owned weapons since 1934.
On the state level, I think that strict scrutiny, and most forms of intermediate scrutiny, would invalidate any type of notional "assault weapons ban", or other categorical or type ban on commonly used firearms; any state "list of approved firearms" as is implemented in Massachusetts and California; and any "permit to purchase" system, requiring a special permit issued by the state or local government to purchase or own every individual firearm. Though it wouldn't necessarily invalidate or prevent any state level firearms registration or database, so long as such registration is not otherwise restrictive or burdensome.
Further (and addressed specifically in this case), even with just intermediate scrutiny, all states will likely eventually be required to implement a "shall issue", or otherwise less restrictive carry law, and permit system (if they require permits at all. 39 states now have "shall issue" permit system, and only 11 have more restrictive permitting. However, 25 of those 39 states now have permitless carry for all citizens age 21 or over, and not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms... and within the year it may be as many as 29. The only reason those 25 states have permit systems, is so that they can have carry permit reciprocity with other states that require permits, or require them for citizens of other states; or for carry in places that would otherwise be restricted... Also, many states allow carry permit holders to skip additional background checks when purchasing firearms, as having a valid permit already proves one is not prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms, and has passed a background check ).
Such a "shall issue" carry permit system, meaning that permits to carry must be issued to anyone meeting requirements, on payment of a reasonable fee, without any requirement that a state official approve the permit, or that the permit applicant show any special need or reason to obtain a permit.
Such requirements meaning, they be a citizen or lawful permanent resident 21 or more years of age, not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, able to pass an FBI background check, and in some states presenting documentation of meeting a training requirement not considered unduly burdensome, to a reasonable person (something like, a class requiring no more than 2 days or instruction, with a reasonable test of demonstrated safety and proficiency, and costing no more than $300 including the permit fee).
Which, as I said, is currently the law in 39 states... And in all 39 of those states, it's been proven that carry permit holders actually commit crimes with their lawfully owned and carried firearms, LESS THAN POLICE DO.
Simply put... Gun control is entirely irrational, and frankly silly and stupid; and in most ways, will finally be recognized as unconstitutional, very soon.
So yeah... here's hoping for strict scrutiny...
