That only works with those who have an open mind. Most “gun control advocates” don’t.

Correction: I should have said Rahimi and Cargill (which will be argued later this month).

While Cargill is more of an APA case, it will have overtures that will drive the various AWB cases.

But I think Rahimi is going to be the main driver. If ACB and Roberts wimp out, Bruen could well be reduced to a shell.

Right now, except *maybe* for the Hawaii case (which ought to be summarily reversed on the 2A issue), I think SCOTUS is going to hold all 2A cert petitions until after they decide Rahimi.

I had hoped that they would grant cert in Range, have it briefed and argued, and then hold the decision in Rahimi until after announcing the Range decision. They could then either remand Rahimi for rehearing in light of the new Range standard for convictions, or just DIG it (cert petition Dismissed as Improvidently Granted). But Range keeps getting relisted, and it’s now too late in the term for them to grant cert on it and have it argued before Rahimi is likely to come out. So we have to wait on Rahimi (and see if ACB continues her apparent conversion into a Beltway denizen).

The petitions in question being “Barnett v. Raoul”, “Harrel v. Raoul”, and “Bevis v. City of Naperville”…

LKB, perchance are you planning any comments or analysis on the three petitions of cert. to the High court, as outlined in this video? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BduZtUbikI

“My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”

Don’t feel bad, its not your fault. Their lack of desire is self-generated – they want the control and that’s their agenda. If they were to acknowledge the truth that they don’t understand the subject matter actually by being willing to accept, using your words (but its more), understanding “gun owners and gun culture on its own terms” their whole narrative for their desired control begins to fall apart. So their “lack of desire” is simply part of their agenda.