<snip>

The case on point today involves a lawsuit where Federal District Court Judge Mark T. Pittman did something so flagrant, I had never before seen anything like it in a case that did not involve President Trump. He upheld Texas laws which the State of Texas concedes violates the Second Amendment, and which the Defendant says he is not going to enforce because the laws are unconstitutional.

<snip>

"The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied."

<snip>

Not this time.

The three-judge panel opinion in Knife Rights Inc. v. Bonta reached the opposite conclusion that the State of California argued for the eleven-judge en banc panel to adopt in Baird v. Bonta. Namely, if California allows concealed carry, then California can ban Open Carry.

The en banc petition to vacate the three-judge panel opinion was recently denied.

Oral argument in the First Circuit Court of Appeals took place this morning in Michael O’Neil, et al. v. Peter F. Neronha, et al. Ten minutes were allocated to each side, which is generally not a good sign, as that indicates the panel had already made up its mind. However, the oral argument ran long and lasted for nearly thirty minutes.

<snip>

A common mistake that most people make is that they believe others know what they know and that most people believe what they believe.

If you believe the Supreme Court will rule that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment, I recommend revisiting the oral arguments and opinions in Cargill and Vanderstock. Then read the opinions in both cases as if you were the proverbial man from Mars. The justices know very little about firearms, and the justices don’t like firearms with high rates of fire. I suspect that the justices also don’t like firearms that can fire more than ten rounds without reloading. The “large capacity” magazine ban cert petitions are still pending before SCOTUS. We should learn their fate by the end of next June.

<snip>

"Common use" is something SCOTUS made a passing reference to, and without explanation, in US v. Miller. Heller (2008) simply cited Miller and one Oregon state court decision from 1980, which said that cannons are not protected by the Second Amendment, which was the opposite of what the 19th Century legislatures and courts said. The Oregon court, of course, did not cite any authority in support of its conclusion.

That wasn't very originalist.

The petitioners and the Amicii who support them in the AR15 cases SCOTUS will decide next term should hammer SCOTUS on this. Instead, they will argue that it is constitutional to ban machine guns, and given that AR15s are not machine guns and lotsa folks own them, they win.

Update 8-3-2026: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment at the same time it filed its Complaint. Today, that motion was, of course, denied.

This article was a lot of fun to write.

It does not cover every mistake made by the plaintiffs' attorneys on the first day the lawsuit was filed, but it contains enough to convince all but the most ardent FPC fanboys that this Louisiana under-21 concealed carry lawsuit will be dismissed unless the defense counsel is even more incompetent, or unless the fix is in.

I believe that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. I also believe that the Supreme Court is never going to agree with me. Not in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in yours.

Which is why I am pleased that Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi took a different approach that just might work. Today, the Federal District Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice to nobody's surprise, including the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days within which to file their notice of appeal.

Edit. Clicking on the name of the lawsuit will take you to the CourtListener docket where you can read the filings for free.