Rob Romano Profile picture
Sep 25, 2020 13 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Brady's Chief Counsel in the call audio: "Americans may wake up to a nation in which white supremacist gangs and boogaloo boys can walk the streets with arsenals of loaded AR-15s and no one can stop them." d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20200925/2e/62…
"The framers of our constitution would be shocked to learn the 2nd Amendment they wrote to ensure people could have muskets for use in armies to protect the states would be interpreted to entitle private citizens to arm themselves with military-style weapons...
...to disrupt order, intimidate protestors, and attack and kill innocent people. The constitution protects American's right to live, not an unbridled right to private arsenals."
Managing Director for Everytown Law: "If the Supreme Court were to adopt a new and extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it would open the door to a flurry of challenges to a wide range of lifesaving gun laws...
...And there are a number of cases that the court could take up that, while certainly narrow in scope, could conceivably lead to such a broad ruling."
Litigation director at Giffords Law: "If Justice Ginsburg's seat is filled by a judge in the mold of the 2nd Amendment absolutists Trump favors and has previously appointed, the balance on the court will fundamentally shift."
Litigation director at Giffords Law specifically mentions Young v Hawaii, Duncan v Becerra, ANJRPC v Grewal, Zoie v Nebraska (without naming it), lawsuits against under-21 bans, and Rhode v Becerra as the ones they're worried about.
Litigation director at Giffords Law: "...it didn't take long for the NRA's bet on Judge Barrett to pay off. She wrote a dissent where she makes it clear she thinks some people convicted of felonies should be allowed to keep guns."
Litigation director at Giffords Law: "Should another of Trump's NRA-approved choices be confirmed to our highest court, it will put gun safety laws in jeopardy and embolden 2nd Amendment extremists for decades to come."
First question is from @johnkruzel: Asks about the two cases going to conference on Tuesday. Asks what they think the chances are for the court taking either one, and how the court's "gatekeeping function" at the cert stage will change for 2A cases.
Answer from Brady: "I'm loath to predict" which case, if any, the court will take. "I think we have all felt that it was likely that the court was gonna take another 2nd Amendment case very soon, and if this opening's filled by a Trump nominee, I think it will be even sooner."
Answer from Giffords: Doesn't think anything has changed from the spring when the other cases were denied, thinks the court will either deny the two cases about to go to conference or hold them until a new justice is confirmed.
That was the only question so the call ended 🤨

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rob Romano

Rob Romano Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @2Aupdates

Sep 12, 2023
NEW: NAGR v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777918…
Donk v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777944…
We The Patriots USA v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777953…
Read 4 tweets
Sep 1, 2023
Everytown wants to amend the complaint to claim that Ruger violated the NFA by selling guns with pistol braces: civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…
Image
The defendants note that the proposed amended complaint removes the previous claims (that were apparently too insane even for Everytown) and basically changes the entire lawsuit: civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…


Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
May 3, 2023
"On cross-examination, he acknowledged that he stuck his phone about six inches (15 centimeters) from Colie's face while the translate app repeated the phrase 'Hey dips---, stop thinking about my sparkle' in English and Spanish." apnews.com/article/youtub…
"Colie backed away from the 6-foot-5 Cook (196 cm), who kept advancing toward Colie even as Colie said 'no' and 'stop' and pushed Cook's arm away. Then, Cook said, when the two were separated by a small distance, Colie pulled out an handgun and shot him in the abdomen."
"Cook said he's been posting pranks online for about a year. He said he was trying to avoid mall security while he filmed the prank on Colie because they had confronted him in the past. A survey of his YouTube channel finds a series of off-putting stunts..."
Read 5 tweets
May 2, 2023
Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. CA): Ryan Busse's newest declaration in support of gun control is for CA's magazine ban (again). At $150/hr, it's almost identical to yesterday's filing in WA (without the part recommending bolt-action rifles for self-defense). storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… ImageImageImageImage
This section was in the Washington filing but not in the California one, probably because most (if not all) of those handguns aren't on the roster: Image
Also removed: ImageImage
Read 6 tweets
Apr 26, 2023
The committee chair said the choice to make this testimony only was "after extensive conversation with the author" and "to allow time for more stakeholder conversations and to help her get to a better place with the bill": senate.ca.gov/media/senate-t…
A rep from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association is speaking in opposition to the bill, saying it "would require insurance to cover intentional criminal acts." Image
A rep from the Personal Insurance Federation of California is now speaking in opposition to the bill, saying its not opposed to gun insurance, but it would require coverage for injuries to household members, which would be "unworkable to our companies": Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 26, 2023
Thinking about it, it's interesting how anti-gun politicians seem hell-bent on keeping their fellow Democrats from being armed. For example:

1) They set high permit fees, preventing poor people from being able to afford them
2) They require permits to be submitted and interviews to be conducted during office hours, preventing people who can't take off work from getting them

3) They ban guns on public transportation, preventing people without cars from carrying anywhere past walking distance
4) They require live-fire training, making it difficult for people without nearby ranges to get permits (especially combined with #3)

5) They require multiple non-family references, preventing people with anti-gun friends from getting permits
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(