Every year the Supreme Court of the United States receives thousands of petitions asking the court to review and reverse decisions by lower federal and state courts.The court typically grants certiorori review to fewer than 100 of those petitions each term. The high court has not granted review in a significant Second Amendment case since 2008 and 2010 when the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms for lawful purposes.
Following the dismissal of NYSRPA as moot, the court rescheduled ten Second Amendment petitions for conference. It is likely that the court will grant cert in at least one of these petitions. In the meantime, they continues to relist the petitions.
Pending or Possible Petitions:
|Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as-applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.||Attorney Alan Gura for petitioners.|
|The question presented is whether California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” Cal. Penal Code § 31900 et seq., violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.||Comm2A participated as a cert amici
Attorneys Alan Gura and Donald E.J. Kilmer for petitoners
|Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement.
Attorneys Daniel L. Schmutter & David H. Thompson for petitioners
|Comm2A right-to-carry case against Boston and Brookline
Attorneys David D. Jensen & David H. Thompson for petitioners
|The question presented is whether the legislative requirement of“ justifiable need” for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.||Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement.
Petition filed pro se
|The question presented is whether States can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have asufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection||Right-to-carry case challenging New Jersey's highly restrictive "justifiable need' requirement.
Attorney David D. Jensen for petitioner
|Does Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally infringe the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?||Comm2A organized challenge to the Massachusetts assault weapons ban. We've also filed a cert stage amicus brief.|
|Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner.||Right-to-carry case challenging Maryland's highly restrictive “Good and Substantial Reason” requirement.
Attorney Paul D. Clement for Petitioners
|Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.|
|Challenge to the Cook County, IL assault weapons ban.|
Response deadline extended to 06/22/2020
|May the government permanently deny a mentally healthy, responsible, and law-abiding citizen of the United States the opportunity to recover his Second Amendment rights solely because of a long-ago involuntary commitment?||CA3 to dismiss as moot. Petitioner is no longer a prohibited person.|
Argument held 12/02/2019
|Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.||Comm2A has filed a merits amicus brief authored by attorney Alan Gura.
Attorney Paul Clement represents petitioners.
|Whether the Second Amendment secures Jorge Medina’s right to possess arms, notwithstanding his conviction for making a false statement to a lending institution 29 years ago.||Medina seeks the restoration of rights following a minor, non-violent felony.
Attorney Alan Gura for petitioner
|Does the Due Process Clause permit the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to shift the burden to criminal defendants charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm and/or ammunition to show authorization for possession?|
|The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).|