Supreme Court denies 100th Second Amendment cert petition this term.
The interlocutory appeal of the Rhode Island ban on magazines (Ocean State) that hold more than ten rounds had been distributed to the SCOTUS voting conference of April 25th. It has now been scheduled for conference thirteen times and rescheduled twice. Likewise, the appeal of the final judgment challenging Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban (Snope) has been distributed to the April 25th SCOTUS conference. It has now been distributed for conference twelve times and rescheduled once.
These two join the only other 2A cert petition scheduled for this Friday’s SCOTUS conference—B&L Productions, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al. No. 24-598. The questions presented in B&L are: 1. Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine” tolerates a categorical ban on any speech or expressive conduct constituting an acceptance in contract formation for lawful sales of lawful products. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with this Court’s decision in Bruen by applying a “meaningful constraint” test to a Second Amendment claim asserting a right to engage in lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition on public property. 3. Whether an allegation that a law is motivated by animus can support a claim under the Equal Protection Clause when the law results in the denial of access to public forums for disfavored groups advocating disfavored rights?
Ten Second Amendment cert petitions went into last Friday’s SCOTUS conference, and only two survived. Their denial brings the total number of Second Amendment cert petitions denied so far this term to 100.
Here is a list of the one hundred Second Amendment petitions denied this term, along with the questions presented by each of the petitions.
Rawtavious Moore, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7554 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)? May 16 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2024). Jun 03 2024 Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted. Daniel Loyola, Jr., Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7682 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Mr. Loyola pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which criminalizes the transfer or possession of a machinegun. On appeal, Mr. Loyola attacked the statute of conviction as unconstitutional. Applying the plain-error standard of review, the Fifth Circuit declared the error alleged to be insufficiently clear. To support the point, it cited a pre-Bruen opinion upholding § 922(o) as constitutional based on the fact machineguns do not receive Second Amendment protections due to their dangerous and unusual nature. The Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, could clarify and further explain its holding in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and thus impact the Fifth Circuit’s plain-error analysis regarding § 922(o)’s constitutionality. The question presented is: Whether a ruling in Mr. Rahimi’s favor would affect the Fifth Circuit’s plain-error analysis concerning the constitutionality of §922(o). Chaves Hodges, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7688 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)? Tayron Deshawn Thomas, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7653 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Subsidiary Question: Whether this Court should hold the instant Petition pending United States v. Rahimi, 22-915, __U.S.__, 2023 WL 4278450 (June 30, 2023)(granting cert.), given the government’s concession in Garland v. Range, No. 23-374, that Rahimi presents “closely related Second Amendment issues” with respect to constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), and justifies a decision to “hold the petition for a writ of certiorari” in Range “pending its decision Rahimi”, Government’s Petition for Certiorari in Garland v. Range, 23-374... Felix Olivas, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7662 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which criminalizes possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment. Ardis Williams, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7689 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Subsidiary Question: Whether this Court should hold the instant Petition pending United States v. Rahimi... Angel Jesus Paniagua, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7692 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. II. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) should be construed to require a more substantial connection to interstate commerce than the mere passage of a firearm across state lines in an unspecified way, and if not, whether it exceeds Congress’s power to enact? Jonathan Jamal Bangash, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7693 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(n) comports with the Second Amendment? Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(n) permits conviction for the receipt of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? Thomas Richardson, Petitioner v. United States No. 23-7730 QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 3. Does the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc, v. Bruen- 597 U-S. (2022) decision suggest that restrictions imposed upon fundamental Constitutional rights must have their roots in America's historic law? Samreen Riaz, Petitioner v. Kaweah Health Medical Center, et al. No. 23-7760 Question Presented Did plaintiff 1st, 2nd, Seventh and Fourteenth amendment rights violated due to unlawful application of 5150? Juan Jesus Vargas, Petitioner v. United States U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) No. 23-7804 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Must district courts comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) to state, in open court, the reasons for the sentence imposed? 2) Should a circuit split regarding the application of § 3553(c) to reasonableness challenges of defendants’ sentences be resolved? 3) Should conflicting application by various federal courts from across the country of U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) be resolved? John E. Cassidy, Petitioner v. Massachusetts No. 24-101 QUESTION PRESENTED John Cassidy legally purchased common firearms in Texas and carried them to Massachusetts as part of his move to the state in 2010. 1. What type of‘Arms’ are protected by the Second Amendment when a state’s multi-level firearm licensing scheme attaches criminal liability for in home possession by a qualified but unlicensed individual? 2. Can a law-abiding citizen who lawfully owns firearms in one state carry those arms to another state as part of a change in residence and as a new resident be convicted for their ‘newly unlicensed conduct’ by way of their continued possession of firearms inside their new home? 3. Does a state’s multi-level firearm licensing scheme violate the Second Amendment when that scheme requires a license to carry to merely possess common firearms in one’s home and punishes all without a carrying license with a felony, mandatory jailtime, and a lifetime ban on constitutionally protected conduct? David Jimenez, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5007 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Cortlin Reese, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5043 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and (n) violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)? Travis Wayne Lovings, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5087 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm solely because it crossed state lines at some point before it came into defendant’s possession. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment. Luis Eduardo Baez, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5101 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? David Thomas Overman, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5103 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Austin Wayne Massey, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5112 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Michael J. Brillon, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5126 QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court should grant certiorari because this Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) rendered Mr. Brillon’s sole offense of conviction unconstitutional, facially and as-applied to him. Jerod Askew, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5211 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a jury instruction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, requires reference to “mere presence” and allows for the jury to draw inferences from improper legal premises. Justin Levar Taylor, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5229 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that prohibits firearm possession by any person who was previously convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”—violates the Second Amendment. (2) Whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to petitioner violated the Commerce Clause where the only proof of a nexus between his firearm possession and interstate commerce consisted of the fact that the firearm had crossed a state line at some point before coming into petitioner’s possession. Jose Rosado, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5298 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to Mr. Rosado, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)? Miguel Tejada-Cruz, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5261 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Mani Panoam Deng, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5404 (The first two questions are the short version) 1. [T]he first question presented is whether, in light of the Menna-Blackledge doctrine, a defendant whose “constitutional claims…do not contradict” his guilty plea and who maintains “he did what the indictment alleged,” retains his right to appeal the denial of an as-applied Second Amendment challenge after pleading guilty. 2. [T]he second question presented in this Petition is whether, consistent with Bruen and Rahimi, the federal firearm prohibition contained in Section 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional facially and as-applied to marijuana users by virtue of their drug use alone. 3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague for the failure to clearly define the temporal nexus between drug use and firearm possession. Donald Davis Gipson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5376 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Stephon James Whitney, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5392 Aug 21 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari The question presented is: Should the Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi? Taddius Tyrone Woods, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5393 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Travis Adam Brown, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5482 QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. II. Whether substantive reasonableness review necessarily requires the court of appeals to reweigh the sentencing factors. Rustam Yusupov, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5506 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Rustam Yusupov’s conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment? 2. Whether the appeal waiver Rustam Yusupov signed as part of his plea agreement bars relief where his conviction is unconstitutional? Taylor Hildreth, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5507 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that prohibits firearm possession by any person who was previously convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”—violates the Second Amendment. Mykel Lee McMillion, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5540 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the possession of a firearm in an open-carry state, combined with other wholly innocent factors, is sufficient to justify a warrantless seizure under the Fourth Amendment? Adam Sanchez, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5560 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? Jose Antonio Campos-Esqueda, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5576 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? Nathan Steward, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5479 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that prohibits firearm possession by any person who was previously convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”—violates the Second Amendment. (2) Whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to petitioner violated the Commerce Clause where the only proof of a nexus between his firearm possession and interstate commerce consisted of the fact that the firearm had crossed a state line at some point before coming into petitioner’s possession. Santos Argueta, et al., Petitioners v. Derrick S. Jaradi No. 23-1257 The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to shoot a fleeing suspect who might be holding a gun but exhibits no other signs of dangerousness. 2. Whether the level and immediacy of the threat actually facing officers on the scene is a question of fact for jurors or a legal issue assigned to the court. Tahjair Dorsey, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5623 QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Tahjair Dorsey pleaded guilty to felon-with-a-firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His disqualifying prior felony conviction: unlicensed carrying of a concealed firearm, at age 18, when state law prevented 18-year-olds from applying for such license. Does the Second Amendment allow for permanent disarmament and prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) of a defendant with one prior non-violent felony conviction (for unlicensed carrying of a firearm)? Isaac Joel Chavez, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5639 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Joseph Marion Rywelski, Petitioner v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. No. 24-328 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this case will resolve all current and future disputes with respect to governmental regulation of Petitioner’s, and all other bona fide U.S. Citizens’, Right to Keep and Bear Arms at the municipal, state, federal, and international level. Terrell Trammell, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5723 Five questions presented. LaVanzel Kerr, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5748 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. May a district court apply a U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement without resolving a defendant’s affirmative defense claim? II. Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) unconstitutional when applied to individuals who have never been convicted of a violent crime? Carl Langston, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5795 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the Petitioner’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment where the predicate offenses alleged in the indictment were nonviolent? In Re Gregory K. Clinton, Petitioner No. 24-5821 Handwritten petition. Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Howell Township, Michigan No. 24-178 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Second Amendment presumptively protects against restrictions burdening the right to train with firearms commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Shawn Eric Durrah, Jr., Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5869 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. To resolve a circuit split, this Court should grant the Writ to determine whether, in applying the dangerous weapon enhancement U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), mere presence of a firearm and a nexus to narcotic activity is sufficient to apply the dangerous weapon enhancement for cases involving distribution of illegal narcotics? Cai Hunter McIntosh, Petitioner v. Washington No. 24-403 The question presented is: Should a sealed juvenile conviction that has essentially disappeared and for which a person’s civil rights have been restored prevent someone from owning a firearm under federal law? David Schieferle, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-120 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether items such as inline fuel filters and firearms solvent traps, which might be able to function to muffle or silence the report of a firearm, can qualify as “firearms silencers” or “firearm mufflers” under the National Firearms Act when the items are not marketed as silencers and have not actually been used to silence or muffle a firearm? II. Whether the Second Amendment prohibits any laws that foreclose law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from possessing items that serve as firearm mufflers or silencers? Manuel Moya, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5951 QUESTION PRESENTED I. Because the restriction contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) implicates the right to bear arms and lacks historical analog, is the lifetime ban of possession of a firearm by all felons facially unconstitutional? II. Does a district court plainly error when it enters a judgment of conviction for an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) as the unconstitutional nature of this statute affects the substantial rights of a criminal defendant? Bay Travon Wilson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5909 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the statute prohibiting possession of firearms by persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment as applied to Petitioner Bay Travon Wilson. Christopher L. Wilson, Petitioner v. Hawaii No. 23-7517 The question presented is: Whether the Bruen test determines when a State's criminal prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license violates the Second Amendment? Statement of Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari. (Detached Opinion). Statement of Justice Gorsuch respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari. (Detached Opinion). Nathan Cooper, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5381 The question presented is: Whether the Court should overrule the frisk holding of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), which allows police officers to search people absent probable cause to arrest. George Henry Purdy, III, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5194 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Whether factual findings of a Presentence Report (PSR) that result in a higher sentence must be proven by the government in the face of objection, or whether the defendant must disprove them? Michael Tyrone Young, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6006 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with nonviolent felony convictions for distributing controlled substances. Tabitha Ward, Petitioner v. New York Police Department Headquarters License Division No. 24-5854 Pro Se - Denial of a handgun carry license based on rational review. Rayzjaun Curry, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5690 QUESTION PRESENTED Is the federal statute criminalizing the possession of a firearm by a felon unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, because it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Chadwick Smith, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6061 Question Presented for Review Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that petitioner’s argument that his federal firearms-related conviction violated the Second Amendment, both on its face and as applied to him, could not survive plain error review, even after recent Second Amendment holdings from this Court that substantially altered this area of law? Benjamin Tyree Townsel, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6063 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the statute prohibiting possession of firearms by persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment. II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Townsel’s intrastate possession of a firearm. Johnny Nunez Garcia, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6064 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the term of supervised release prohibiting possession of firearms violates the Second Amendment? Rhobashi Holmes, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6082 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face, because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies, even those who are not violent and pose no risk to the public? Does § 922 (g)(1) plainly exceed the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce? Recardo Cartrell Pierce, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6089 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)? Christopher Gonzales, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6103 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on the possession of firearms by all felons violate the Second Amendment on its face and as applied to Gonzales, who has a prior drug possession felony conviction? 2. Can Congress criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm solely because it crossed state lines at some point before it came into a person’s possession? Gabriel Gray, et al., Petitioners v. Kathy Jennings, Attorney General of Delaware, et al. No. 24-309 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury. Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., et al, Petitioners v. Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, et al. No. 24-373 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Maryland’s Handgun Qualification License Requirement violates the Second Amendment. Mark Allen Craig, II, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5786 I. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” violates the Second Amendment on its face. Gail Manney, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6197 Question Presented for Review The question presented is whether the Second Amendment covers a federal firearm regulation. This Court has not yet clarified the Second Amendment’s coverage in the context of firearm regulations. Petitioner Gail Manney asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) regulates the purchase of firearms, a protected Second Amendment right, thus requiring full review under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Ninth Circuit held otherwise by finding the criminal firearm regulation did not fall within the Second Amendment. Certiorari is therefore necessary to establish the breadth of the Second Amendment. Roderick Wayne Bell, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6211 The question presented is: Whether there is an obvious and irreconcilable clash between §922(g)(1) and the rights protected by the Second Amendment. Konstadin Bitzas, Petitioner v. New Jersey No. 24-681 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Questions 2 & 4 are Second Amendment questions). 1. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), do defects in the search warrant application process, including failure to satisfy the oath requirement; providing an ambiguous and misleading criminal history; and omitting key facts about the complaining witnesses’ intoxication, render a criminal search warrant invalid? 2. Under Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) and United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024), did the warrant-issuing judge and the reviewing courts impermissibly blur-the-line between the emergency caretaker function requirements to enter a dwelling and the more stringent probable cause requirements for issuance of a criminal search warrant? 3. Under Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), when an individual represents himself pro se at a criminal trial, does a trial court’s failure to conduct a colloquy to determine whether the defendant understands his right to testify violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment? 4. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), does the Second Amendment permit a state statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by persons not convicted of a violent crime or otherwise determined to pose a safety risk to themselves or others? Cleate Wilson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6102 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the statute prohibiting possession of firearms by persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment. II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Wilson’s intrastate possession of a firearm. The Gun Range, LLC, Petitioner v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al. No. 24-649 The question presented is: Whether prohibiting a business that provides Second Amendment-protected goods and services from operating in substantially all of a city’s land areas—and all of its commercial areas—violates the Second Amendment. Corey Shaquielle Johnson, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6283 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Brent Howard, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6290 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—the statute that prohibits firearm possession by any person who was previously convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”—violates the Second Amendment. (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because it burdens the fundamental right of firearms possession and is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest. (3) Whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to petitioner violated the Commerce Clause where the only proof of a nexus between his firearm possession and interstate commerce consisted of the fact that the firearm had crossed a state line at some point before coming into petitioner’s possession. Deion Shawn Hester, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6301 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a person who was previously convicted of a felony is categorically excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment. Mark Allen Hayden, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6326 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Floyd v. State, __ S.W.3d___, 2024 WL 4757855 (Tex. Crim. App. November 13, 2024) – issued by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after the decision below -- demonstrates that Petitioner’s prior statute of conviction cannot be divided for the purposes of the categorical approach, and hence demonstrates a reasonable probability of relief if the court below were given a chance to reconsider in light of that intervening authority? Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment, and whether this Court should hold the instant Petitition pending resolution of the circuit split presented by Range v. Garland, ___ F.4th___, 2024 WL 5199447 (3rd Cir. Dec. 23, 2024)(en banc), and United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024)? Carlos James Meeks, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6416 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? Jose Paz Medina-Cantu, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6427 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether courts must conduct a historical analysis to decide a Second Amendment challenge to a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). 2. Whether the government’s prosecution of petitioner under § 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment. Artis Womack, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6435 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional? II. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? Deonta Lowe, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6507 QUESTION PRESENTED Do convicted felons have Second Amendment rights, in light of this Court’s interpretation of “the people” in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592-95 (2008), its references to the Second Amendment rights of “law-abiding citizens” in Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 635, and in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 29-31 (2022), and its dicta regarding the presumptive lawfulness of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” in Heller, 554 U.S. at 627-628, n.26, and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010)? Carlton Martin Volz, III, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6506 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do convicted felons have Second Amendment rights, in light of this Court’s interpretation of “the people” in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592-95 (2008)? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) satisfy the Second Amendment in all of its applications? Feb 04 2025 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 10, 2025). Feb 11 2025 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed. Narey Perez-Quibus, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6540 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether under the Second Amendment methodology set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), as clarified in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Eric St. George, Petitioner v. Jason Lengerich, Warden, et al. No. 24-6313 Prisoner Pro Se - See petition. Longino Lopez Flores, IV, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6567 Question Presented for Review Did the Fifth Circuit err in affirming the four level enhancement to petitioner’s sentencing range for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which is authorized when the defendant used or possessed any firearm in connection with another felony offense, when the evidence was insufficient to support this enhancement because it only showed simultaneous presence of drugs and a firearm, and the Fifth Circuit failed to rely on its two prior opinions that refused to apply this type of enhancement, but instead relied on a Fourth Circuit opinion to affirm petitioner’s sentence? Anthony Washington, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6627 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a person who was previously convicted of a felony is categorically excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment. Dajuan Martin, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6582 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face because it is permanent, has no exceptions, and applies to all persons convicted of felonies, even those who are not violent? (2) Are the lower courts uniformly in error, under Stinson and Kisor, in holding that a firearm magazine with an industry-standard capacity—for example, 16 or 17 rounds of ammunition—is a “large capacity magazine” under the Sentencing Guidelines? Willie McCoy, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6606 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do convicted felons have Second Amendment rights, in light of this Court’s interpretation of “the people” in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592-95 (2008)? 2. Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) satisfy the Second Amendment in all of its applications? Elmer Alexis Montano Fuentes, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6713 QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm solely because it crossed state lines at some point before it came into the defendant’s possession. Steven Eric Walker, Petitioner v. United States, et al. No. 24-6046 Questions Presented 1. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008), this Court rejected the government's belief that it has a plenary power over the individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Id at 598-602. The Court further recognized the prohibition of government power over the right "is general” and that "[n]o clause in the constitution" could give to either the state or federal government "a power to disarm the people" as the Second Amendment is “a restraint" on both. Id. at 607. Question: Does the unqualified constitutional prohibition established by the Second Amendment delegate to government a free-floating power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear weapons for purposes of security, safety, and self-defense? 2. In NYPistol & Rifle Assc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 34 (2022), this Court held that the government must carry the burden of demonstrating whether the evidence supporting their gun control regulation is consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment, to overcome the presumption of protected conduct. Yet, there is not an established standard of proof. Question: Does the constitutional burden of proof require the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their weapons regulations, are consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment? Randy Price, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-5937 The question presented for review is not a model of clarity. It appears that this case is about 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)’s prohibition on possessing a firearm with an “obliterated” serial number. I. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The narrow question presented is whether Second Amendment protected “conduct,” for purposes of Bruen’s step one, consists of anything other than an individual’s possession or carrying of a bearable firearm. Ivan Antonyuk, et al., Petitioners v. Steven G. James, In His Official Capacity as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, et al. No. 24-795 The questions presented are: 1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather than 1868; and 2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Kareem Reaves, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6487 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a person who was previously convicted of a felony is categorically excluded from the protections of the Second Amendment. Carlsel Alexander, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6737 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional because it is permanent and has no exceptions, nor process for regaining firearm rights? (2) Are the Courts of Appeals uniformly in error, under both Stinson and Kisor, in holding that a firearm magazine with an industry-standard capacity is a “large capacity magazine” under the Sentencing Guidelines? Justin Lang Williams, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6729 The questions presented are: 1. Whether section 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban for possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment as applied to Petitioner? 2. Can a district court deny a defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility when he pleads guilty, cooperates with the U.S. Probation Office but subsequent to his guilty plea tests positive for drugs, conduct which is unrelated to his offense of conviction? 3. When the plain reading of the Guideline demonstrates that unrelated post plea conduct cannot form the basis for the denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction, can the district court rely upon Guideline commentary to hold otherwise? 4. Whether denying a defendant a reduction in his sentence for acceptance of responsibility for being an addict runs afoul of this Court’s decision in Robinson? Carlsel Alexander, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6737 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional because it is permanent and has no exceptions, nor process for regaining firearm rights? (2) Are the Courts of Appeals uniformly in error, under both Stinson and Kisor, in holding that a firearm magazine with an industry-standard capacity is a “large capacity magazine” under the Sentencing Guidelines? Steven Dewayne Barnes, Jr., Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6738 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The Eleventh Circuit erred in concluding that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and frisk based on ambiguous and subjective factors, such as Petitioner’s alleged nervousness and body posture, in the absence of specific, articulable facts linking Petitioner to criminal activity. 2. The Eleventh Circuit erred in upholding the district court’s application of a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a concealed firearm, thereby engaging in impermissible double counting and violating Petitioner’s Second Amendment rights under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 US 1 (2022). Joshua Wade, Petitioner v. University of Michigan No. 24-773 The question presented is: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for “extraordinary circumstances.” Bob Jacobson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Petitioner v. Kristin Worth, et al. No. 24-782 QUESTION PRESENTED Does Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment? Joseph Srour, Petitioner v. City of New York, New York, et al. No. 24-844 The question presented is: Whether vacatur is proper where the government’s voluntary conduct causes the case to become moot in the context of the review of a successful facial constitutional challenge. Felix Pusey, Petitioner v. Florida No. 24-6608 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether section 790.23(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which criminalizes the possession and ownership of a firearm by people under the age of 24 who have previously been adjudged delinquent for a felony offense as a juvenile, violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a twelve-person jury to try a criminal defendant accused of a felony offense. 3. Whether the imposition of a lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentence upon a juvenile offender violates the Eighth Amendment. Thomas Caves, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6823 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred by applying its plain error standard to affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on his plea of guilty to one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), the felon in possession statute, notwithstanding precedent from this Court which rendered obsolete the Second Circuit’s prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of the felon in possession statute. Tia Lyn Nicole Sulu-Kerr, Petitioner v. Arizona No. 24-6744 QUESTION PRESENTED Question Presented For Review Whether a state legislature may completely eliminate the enumerated right to self-defense, which is the second amendment's "central component", by limiting that justification to crimes that it chooses to define within the same criminal code title, and not permit it to be applied to any crime that it defines outside of that criminal code title, regardless of the reasonableness of the accused's actions. Jarvis Parker, Petitioner v. Florida No. 24-6146 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, contrary to the Due Process and Jury Clauses, the trial court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence under a statute authorizing the enhancement based on nonjury fact-findings upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence? 2. Whether Petitioner was deprived of his right to bear arms, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, where he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon? 3. Whether Petitioner was derived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony? Zachary Michael Linan, Petitioner v. United States No. 24-6879 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 2. Is U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in light of Bruen and its accompanying decisions?