Good post! I think your comments are very well thought out. I just want to add I think it’s interesting that Kavanaugh appears to have been the deciding vote to dismiss the case.srothstein wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:58 pmWe will never be privy to the discussions among the justices and that is a good thing, but I would almost be willing to bet that this was why they ruled the case moot. There were enough justices to demand the case be heard and they declined to dismiss it as moot the first time they were asked. But I would be willing to bet that even the justices in favor of the Second Amendment did not agree on which standard they would write it as. There were some unusual alliances probably in getting the case heard because SCOTUS generally doesn't go for states changing the law just to render a case moot. I am guessing there were not enough to get a majority to say that strict scrutiny was the right way to go.
Just my unsupported opinion.
I think that SCOTUS is probably waiting for the perfect case. They are well aware of the old saying that bad cases make for bad law and are waiting for the right case. The AR15 cases might not have been as clear cut as they wanted. Another point is that the argument should be clear. The California ammo case might be a pretty clear case they will accept. To me, it is much more clear than the AR15 cases. I would argue the taxes on it as much as the background check and limits. After all, there is established precedence that you cannot tax a right, or we would still have poll taxes.Maybe that California case on ammo restrictions will get to the Scotus some day or another similar case.
I was very disappointed the Scotus declined to hear the AR15 cases out of Maryland and Illinois.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_ba7d.pdf