Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights

What is the Supreme Court Doing?

December 19, 2023 Jeff Dowdle Episode 181
Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights
What is the Supreme Court Doing?
Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights
Help us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

In this episode, we discuss what happened with the Supreme Court and the Illinois assault weapons ban.  We also identify what we need to be looking for out of the supreme court in future decisions.

Fountain Podcast App
Follow me on Fountain

Follow twitter @JeffDowdle
Follow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdle

Convention of States Project
Presearch search engine sign up.
Brave Browser

Find our Representative
email me at
Follow me on Gettr
Follow me on Telegram
subscribe to my newsletter

Support the show

Support the show

Welcome to the Live2Shoot Podcast. My name is Jeff Dowdell, and I've been a licensed firearm dealer for the last 16 years. In this podcast, we talk about all things related to the Second Amendment, as well as anything else going on in my life, or any other story that might be interesting. So, welcome, welcome, welcome. Try something a little different, um, way I'm recording this. We'll see how this goes. Um, may sound a little weird. We'll see. But anyway, so what is going on with the Supreme Court? Um, sometimes you see these stories and you just scratch your head. And I am going to admit, I am not a, uh, judicial, uh, expert. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. Never have been. Um, don't even really care. I don't know any judges, but, uh, and don't really know, you know, the ins and outs of the Supreme Court, so I, I follow people, I research, I do my own thing, and so, uh, that's where I get my information, just so you know, so I'm not just espousing my own thoughts here, I am sharing things that I've heard from others, but anyway, Sorry. What's going on with the Supreme Court? They make these rulings, you hear these things, and you're like, I thought we had a conservative Supreme Court. I thought we were going to be pro Second Amendment. And what am I talking about right now? I'm talking about the case about Beavis v. Naperville. And if you're not familiar with it, this is just a little bit of the backstory. Naperville, Illinois. A city in Illinois. I passed an assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban in the city, okay, so this is a state legislation, it's not federal, it's a city legislation that you can't own assault weapons and they use kind of the common black rifle scary definition for assault rifles and this was challenged and it has gone, uh, to the, the, um, The federal court, the district court, um, now it's gone to the, it went to the appeals court and then, and I'll embark and then they sent it to the, uh. Um, Supreme Court to see if they, while they were, while they could get a stay and injunction issued and while this, while things were being decided. And this is the Seventh Circuit. Amy Coney Barrett is over the Seventh Circuit, so she's the one that received this. And she saw it and she sat back down and said, Nope, I'm not going to issue the injunction. I'm not going to issue the stay on this. Um, and. What that essentially did is, uh, it ended that case. And the case is over. It's been decided in favor of the city of Naperville. It is standing up. So why, why did she do this? And The reason is, based on everything I'm seeing, is the court just does not like to get involved with ongoing cases. It's called an interrogatory appeal. So the case is still going on in, in these lower courts. And they also send it to the Supreme Court for their review. And from what I can tell is the Supreme Court has been very consistent. And saying, nope, we need this to come through the normal channels, which is a writ of certiorari, a writ of cert, um, where you appeal to the Supreme Court after your case has been done for us to hear it. Now, interesting enough, right now we have this going on with our January 6th President Trump, uh, trial. Uh, Jack Smith has jumped over all the courts and has gone directly to the Supreme Court. Uh, Um, asking them to hear on the president's claim that he's immune from prosecution because of his presidential immunity from being prosecuted for crimes or he's the president, the standing, uh, uh, Rules have been, the way you address this with a president is you impeach him. Uh, you don't prosecute him as a criminal. And that's the, uh, president has appealed that. And that ruling, or that has challenged, you know, the standing of this case that Jack Smith has. And Jack Smith has sent this all the way to the Supreme Court. And they said, You know, they didn't haven't agreed to heard it yet. They said we need arguments and gave the president's team till tomorrow actually to give their, the 20th, to write their, their position on this and If they stand true to form they should kick that back down and say nope, we're not gonna hear it because we want this case to Be, go through all the, the, uh, issues and be finished and then be filed to us as a, as a writ of cert if they're, if they're consistent because that's what they did in, in Naperville, the Beavis v. Naperville. So now, while it seems kind of ominous, the Supreme Court didn't step in and say, hey, this, this obviously violates Berlin. This obviously is a violation of the Second Amendment. Um, and. We're going to step in. No, they said, we're not going to step in until you finish everything. Everything has been finished. Now, I would expect that the, uh, plaintiffs, attorneys will be filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Will they hear it? I don't know. But my question, you know, one of the questions if I was a Supreme Court Justice is, aren't they just frustrated? They, they ruled on Bruin. They were pretty clear. And things like this are obviously unconstitutional based on the Bruin decision. But people keep writing these laws and they keep having to hear them and say, nope, Bruin, Bruin, Bruin. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with this Beavis v. Naperville because obviously a city banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. There is no history and tradition as stated in Bruin to support this. So it's obviously unconstitutional. And on the side, let's sit and watch and see if the Supreme Court is consistent with the way they handle the President's case as they have been with all these others saying we have to finish it up because what's important about that is because if it goes, if the President's appeal, his challenge, uh, based on his immunity is not instantly heard by the Supreme Court. It has to work its way through all the different lower courts. It's going to take a lot of time. And what's Jack Smith want to do? He wants to get the President convicted before the election. We know that. We know that's true. So this will delay that to where this rushed trial will obviously be heard after the election. And at that point, they're probably not going to be interested in it because He's either won or lost and they're obviously not going to be able to get their end objective of keeping him from running for office. But that's a whole other note. So let's keep an eye on the Supreme Court. Keep an eye on what they do with these cases. Remember the Supreme Court likes the cases to get finished before they hear them completely. So that's what's going on with Beavis. See if that happens with some of these other cases that they're hearing. Very interesting. So. Talk to y'all later. Thanks for listening. You know, subscribe, share this podcast with others. Just get the message out to people They can get just a little quick information on the Second Amendment each, each week, every other week, whenever It's timely, but I appreciate you listening. Thanks. Have a great day

Podcasts we love