Now that the Supreme Court has released its opinions in Garland v. Cargill and U.S. v. Rahimi, the expectations about today's Orders from Conference were pretty high. The Court has been hanging on to a half-dozen prohibited person cases as well as six combined challenges to the gun and magazine bans that are a part of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, and with Cargill and Rahimi now a part of the record, the assumption was that the justices would have decided to do something with these cases in last week's conference. 

Well, you know what they say about assuming things. 

No, I have no idea wtf is going on.

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 24, 2024

In today's orders from last week's conference the Court did grant, vacate, and remand one case that's been on hold; Guedes v. ATF, an FPC Action Foundation lawsuit dealing with the ATF's bump stock ban. The Court remanded Guedes back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously upheld the ATF rule, for further reconsideration in light of its ruling in Cargill. 

In addition, the Supreme Court has denied the cert petition in Garland v. Hardin, which was a bump stock ban case where the government lost at the Sixth Circuit. You can view the full orders list here: https://t.co/9qjyTQGqHX pic.twitter.com/XEaQExNUOJ

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 24, 2024

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has basically been put on notice that it got it wrong in Guedes, and is now being given the chance to rectify its error. 

But what about Range, which deals with whether someone convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor punishable by more than a year in prison can be prohibited forevermore from purchasing or possessing a firearm? Or Daniels, which challenges the federal statute barring "unlawful" users of drugs from legally possessing a gun? I expected those cases to be GVR'ed as well today, and it doesn't make much sense to hold on to them for another week or more. Maybe there are one or more justices writing a dissent? 

And perhaps most importantly, what about the Illinois cases, as well as Antonyuk v. James, which is also awaiting a response from the Supreme Court? That's a challenge to New York's post-Bruen carry restrictions; specifically the use of a "good moral character" clause in determining whether someone can obtain a carry license. In Rahimi, the Court shot down the idea that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to "responsible" people, which should be helpful to the Antonyuk plaintiffs, but the justices took no action on the case last week. 

We'll be discussing the Rahimi decision, as well as the Court's non-decisions in the Second Amendment cases that are pending action from conference, on today's Bearing Arms Cam & Co. California Rifle & Pistol Association president and co-founder of the 2A Law Center Chuck Michel will be joining me to delve into the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of Rahimi, but I'm also planning on picking Chuck's brain about what the Court might be up to with the prohibited person cases, the Illinois gun and magazine ban challenges, and New York's "good moral character" clause. 

No decisions from SCOTUS on whether to grant cert on the 2A cases with petitions pending. IMHO Rahimi did not clarify enough to justify a GVR on any of these pending cases, so look for a grant, denial, or denial with dissent next Monday.

— Chuck Michel (@CRPAPresident) June 24, 2024

The Court's silence isn't bad news, necessarily, but it's still somewhat confounding.