DUNCAN V. BECERRA!!! Ninth Circuit Out of Time???

This video discusses potential outcomes for the Duncan v. Bonta Supreme Court case. It outlines three main paths: granting full review, denying the case outright, or utilizing a GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) order. The description highlights the implications of each path, particularly how a denial would uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling, while a GVR could necessitate a re-evaluation by the lower court based on new Supreme Court guidance. The content focuses on the legal and procedural aspects of this Second Amendment case.

This video discusses the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' alleged pattern of granting en banc review for Second Amendment cases, arguing it disproportionately impacts pro-gun rights victories. The presenter, Anna, highlights that en banc reviews are typically rare across most legal areas but seem to be frequently sought in gun-related cases. This practice, according to the video, effectively undermines Second Amendment advocacy, treating it as a less significant right. The content references judicial dissents that have flagged this perceived bias, specifically mentioning Judge VanDyke.

This video discusses the legal implications of public transit being considered a "sensitive place" in relation to Second Amendment rights. CRPA (California Rifle & Pistol Association) is highlighted for their involvement in a Seventh Circuit case, emphasizing how a ruling in one circuit can impact gun rights in others. The video contrasts the Seventh Circuit's decision, which upheld restrictions on public transit, with a previous win in the Ninth Circuit, creating a circuit split. The goal is to prevent the spread of restrictive "sensitive place" interpretations.

This video delves into the significant increase in Amicus Briefs filed after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision in 2022. The speaker explains how Bruen opened new legal avenues for Second Amendment, First Amendment, and Fourth Amendment cases, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. The CRPA has leveraged these developments, partnering with other 2A nonprofits to increase their filings of Amicus Briefs to influence these evolving legal landscapes.

This video discusses the legal arguments presented in a Ninth Circuit case concerning firearm suppressors. The CRPA's legal team analyzes the judges' questions and identifies a potential path to a 2-1 victory, despite one judge's historical Second Amendment record. The analysis focuses on the possibility of a key precedent being set for suppressors and firearm training, with optimism for a written opinion in 2026.

This video analyzes the significance of a judge remaining silent during oral arguments in a Second Amendment case, specifically a suppressor case before the Ninth Circuit. The discussion clarifies that a judge's silence is not a reliable indicator of their stance. Instead, the video suggests focusing on the appointing president and the judge's past rulings on Second Amendment issues, citing Clarence Thomas as an example of a justice who historically asked few questions. The content highlights the importance of understanding judicial behavior in the context of gun rights.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Torcivia v. Suffolk County. The speaker, an authority on Second Amendment litigation, explains how the Second Circuit's ruling allows for warrantless firearm seizures under the 'special needs exception,' despite the Supreme Court's prior decision in Caniglia v. Strom. The denial means this precedent stands, potentially impacting future firearm rights cases.

This expert analysis from Armed Scholar details the Supreme Court's 5-4 emergency order concerning Texas's border dispute with the Biden administration. The ruling allows federal agents to cut concertina wire while the case proceeds, impacting Texas's claim to a constitutional right of self-defense against invasion. The case is remanded for further factual development.

The Supreme Court denied a stay for Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which aimed to prevent state agents from enforcing federal gun laws deemed unconstitutional. The 8-1 decision, with Justice Thomas dissenting, leaves the future of SAPA uncertain, though a statement from Justices Gorsuch and Alito suggests private enforcement mechanisms might still be viable. This ruling has significant implications for state-level attempts to counter federal firearm regulations.

This video details a critical U.S. Supreme Court emergency election order concerning Pennsylvania's handling of provisional ballots. The Supreme Court denied an emergency request to stay a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mandated the counting of provisional ballots for voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid. The RNC argued this usurped the state legislature's role and constituted impermissible 'ballot curing.' Justice Alito's opinion noted the limited scope of the lower court's judgment.