Keep an eye on the Second Amendment cert petitions Scheduled for the Supreme Court long conference of 9/27/2021

Although pretty much everyone is focused on the NYSRPA v. Bruen concealed carry case scheduled for oral argument on November 3rd, it is the Second Amendment and related petitions scheduled for the “long conference” of September 27th that we need to worry about.

There are over 1,200 petitions scheduled for the Supreme Court Long Conference of September 27th, 2021.

By the day of the conference, there will be even more.

Nearly every one of the petitions will be denied.

My interest is primarily in Second Amendment cases and closely related cases.

I will be posting a few videos on the Second Amendment petitions scheduled for the long conference that aren’t dead on arrival but those petitions, for better or worse, will almost certainly be denied.

My videos can be viewed on my video channels at:




That isn’t to say that all of the Second Amendment petitions scheduled for the long conference won’t be denied.

You might recall that on June 15th of last year, ten Second Amendment cert petitions were denied.

Those petitions dealt with a range of Second Amendment topics including several involving the carrying of handguns, openly and concealed, bans on so-called large-capacity magazines and assault weapons, California’s ever-dwindling roster of handguns approved for sale, and one in which the petitioners challenged a Washington, DC, interstate handgun transfer law that requires all DC residents who seek to purchase a handgun to utilize a DC-based transfer service.

Only one justice, Justice Thomas, wrote a dissent to the denial of only one cert petition. Justice Kavanaugh joined in the dissent except for the part of the dissent that said “this is the petition we should grant.”

In short, there was only one justice who would have granted only one of the ten Second Amendment cert petitions that were denied.

This time, we have slightly more than ten Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for a conference and they can just as easily all be denied.

If it were up to me, the justices would be required to grant all of the Second Amendment cert petitions.

But it isn’t up to me.

These are the petitions which will almost certainly not survive their first conference.

You can find links to them on my website.


The QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW is Whether resident undocumented immigrants are part of the people whose right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense the second amendment protects.

This is a wonderful question, but the question is unlikely to be answered by SCOTUS. At least not in this case, and if we are being realistic, the question is unlikely to ever be answered by SCOTUS.

Frederick M. Weber, Petitioner v. Ohio – QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

What is the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment-possession and use of a firearm within the home?

An excellent question, unfortunately, this is a criminal case. That means the cert petition will almost certainly be denied.

Other than the Jamie Caetano v. Massachusetts per curiam, which did not even reverse her conviction for possessing a stun gun, let alone decide whether or not a stun gun is protected by the Second Amendment, the Justices have shown no interest in granting a cert petition challenging a criminal conviction or loss of one’s right to possess firearms as a result of a criminal conviction on Second Amendment grounds.

After reading so many rambling, tap-dancing, three-card monte cert petitions, it is nice to finally read one written in plain English.

Unfortunately, the petition does not comply with SCOTUS Rule 10.

The best that it can hope for is a GVR (Grant, Vacate, and Remand) in light of NYSRPA v. Corlett.

Leevan Roundtree, Petitioner v. Wisconsin


1. Whether a non-violent felon may bring an as applied challenge to a state law that permanently denies Second Amendment rights to anyone convicted of a crime denominated as a felony.

2. Whether, in adjudicating a non-violent felon’s as-applied challenge to a state dispossession law, the reviewing court may uphold the law without analyzing the particular non-violent felony of which the challenger was convicted.

I hope that this cert petition is not D.O.A. and/or does not misrepresent itself.

There was a wide range of prohibited person cert petitions that were denied this term with Justice Barrett sitting on the bench.

Justice Barrett did not write a single dissent to the denial of any of the cert petitions, which includes the cert petitions on behalf of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law.

Every prohibited person cert petition that presented any question to the justices, not just Second Amendment questions, including Commerce Clause and other challenges to a firearms disposition law, has been denied to date.

Denying the cert petitions where the petitioners were convicted of drunk driving as the prohibiting crime did not surprise me.

I was disappointed that the petitioner whose disqualifying crime was counterfeiting Bon Jovi cassette tapes had his cert petition denied.

But, this cert petition has a significant difference from the others, namely “Because this petition does not ask the Court to strike down any particular application of a felon dispossession law, and does not call into question the federal dispossession statute, it is fundamentally different from-and presents narrower legal questions than petitions this Court has denied.”

The two questions are good questions. In particular, the petition identifies circuit splits.

Moreover, if it is true that Wisconsin refuses to allow one to claim that the law is unconstitutional as it applies to him then it is a harbinger of really bad news for the Second Amendment if SCOTUS denies this cert petition.

Regina Therese Drexler, Petitioner v. Theresa Spahn, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the First Amendment permits the issuance of a civil protection order to (i) punish a “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, or (ii) permits a civil protection order to act as a prior restraint of speech about a protected person?

2. Whether Section 1983 relief is available to remedy First Amendment violations arising from (i) punishment of “pattern” of conduct where such conduct includes only protected speech and activities, (ii) prior restraint of speech about a protected person, and (iii) punishment of appellate petitioning challenging such punishment and restraint, as well as Second Amendment and due process violations alleged but not addressed by the lower courts?

No Response was filed and not a single justice requested a response. This cert petition is D.O.A.

Donald H. Kimball, Petitioner v. Altoona Police Department, et al. – QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Before I read the first of two questions presented to the justices, I will note that it is a long question and the justices do not like long questions. Context should be in the lead up to the questions presented and even the lead up should not be too long.

Here is the first question presented to the justices.

1) The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling unanimously holding that the Ninth Circuit “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and remanded the case for reconsideration. (United States v. Sinenene-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)) Shouldn’t the Eighth Circuit’s case be remanded for reconsideration by not only drastically departing from the principal of party presentation, introducing clearly erroneous evidence not previously on record, and being in direct conflict of the United States Supreme Court’s and their own previous rulings? The court’s choices to introduce unsubstantiated conclusions were not only extremely prejudicial in determining the outcome of the case, but also severely affected the rights of the petitioner. It was established in (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780. 130 S.Ct. 3020. 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)) that the Second Amendment guarantee is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and reiterated Heller’s reasoning that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component * of the Second Amendment right.” 130 S.Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599. 128 S. Ct. 2783).” When a state has instituted laws to assure the protection of one’s constitutional rights and an agent of that state, (Chief of Police), knowingly, and unnecessarily, denies one’s constitutional right without due process, and continues to do so after an order from the court to cease said violation, is that not clearly a Section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation?

Here is the second question presented.

2) In consideration of Kimball’s Appellate Brief, Statement of Issues for Review, No. VI. “Did the District Court abuse their discretion by introducing erroneous facts and arguments not on record and denying Mr. Kimball’s request for Leave to Amend?,” is that notification for, and warrants an abuse of discretion review?

The Respondents filed a waiver to respond but not a single justice asked for a response. That means this cert petition is D.O.A.

Khalid M. Turaani, Petitioner v. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. – The question presented did not mention the Second Amendment but the petition does, 32 times.

The response was due on August 19, 2021, but the respondent neither filed a brief in opposition or a waiver.

That makes this cert petition D.O.A.

John A. Clifford, Petitioner v. New York – The four questions presented are:

(1) Does the 2nd Amendment apply here;

(2) Does the granting of immunity in a federal civil case prohibit cross examination of a complaining witness about the admitted underlying bad act;

(3) was deliberately failing to send the jury back to deliberate a violation of due process:

(4) Was the appellate court’s failure to rule a violation of due process?

The petitioner is an attorney, representing himself.

He challenges his conviction for a crime of menacing.

His Second Amendment question presented is quote “Does the 2nd Amendment apply here?” end quote.

The Respondents filed a waiver to respond but not a single justice asked for a response. That means this cert petition is D.O.A.

As of September 13th, there are four Second Amendment cert petitions that have some chance of surviving their first conference on 9/27. I will do separate videos on them.

There is a statistically small possibility that there will be additional Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for the long conference.

And we have at least four additional Second Amendment cert petitions that are still in the pipeline.

That’s all for this article.

Until next time, thank you for reading, and please sign up for my newsletter at, and please subscribe to one of my video channels at:





Keep an eye on the Second Amendment cert petitions Scheduled for the Supreme Court long conference of 9/27/2021 1
I am the first and only person to ever file a lawsuit challenging California’s bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded handguns, rifles, and shotguns for the purpose of self-defense.