I thought this was why many gun owners wanted Trump
To get a gun rights case to the Supreme Court:
The U.S. Supreme Court for a second straight year refused on Monday to hear a challenge to Californias limits on carrying handguns in public, dealing another setback to gun rights proponents.
The courts action underscored its continued reluctance to step into a national debate over gun control roiled by a series of mass shootings including the one at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11 people on Oct. 27. It has not taken up a major gun case since 2010.
The justices, declining to hear an appeal by two gun owners, on Monday left in place a November 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Californias restrictions.
If it won’t be heard, then it will not be correctly ruled on.
November 6th, 2018 at 6:41 pm
This was not the strongest case, with one applicant having abandoned his application, and the other granted the permit.
Just yesterday, the First Circuit rubberstamped Massachusetts’ may-issue law. This is a much better vehicle for the Supreme Court.
November 7th, 2018 at 2:55 am
I suspect we’re going to see a pattern (well, we’re already seeing that pattern) where the Supremes back away from Second Amendment issues.
That’s typical.
Well, I don’t mean it in a bad way, but until there is a strong constitutional challenge from both sides of the issue, SCOTUS would rather let the “children” work it out between them.
Which might be the best approach (and certainly is, from Their Point Of View) because there is too much emotion being expressed by both sides of the issue.
Yes, the Second Amendment acknowledges certain inalienable rights … but how far should that go?
Open Carry is a hot issue, and those who are campaigning for OC are “almost” as adamant as those who declare “I Have The Right To Feel Safe!”
When you walk into a fast food restaurant and you see someone with a gun, the immediate reaction from most people is to get back in their car and drive away before the shooting starts. They can’t tell the difference between OC and an armed robbery.
OC protests have been so “In Your Face” that it seems to challenge not only the law, but everyone who is trying to just get a hamburger; they don’t want to be involved.
I understand that this is the point of OC … to help folks accept OC as a normal part of life as a Citizen.
I think this is not working out the way folks had hoped it would.
No solutions offered here; I see both sides of the issue, and I understand that FEAR is more powerful than DETERMINATION.
My best suggestion for OC is .. tone it down. Give folks a chance to become accustomed gradually.
I know, folks will call me a FUDD (has happened frequently .. including yesterday and today) for my attempt at Middle Of The Road approaches.
But it’s something to think about.
November 7th, 2018 at 5:40 pm
So the problems is Roberts, no.
November 8th, 2018 at 11:32 am
They did the right thing. Not the right cases. Not the right time. Not the right environment.
We know we will have another Constitutionalist on SCOTUS in the near term. Antis know it too. They will gin up a major push for major restrictions prior to that. When they do the right plaintiff(s) will come forward and by then it will be 5 to 3 instead of 41/2 to 31/2 and the rulings they make will be the standard for decades to come.
And we’re treading water right now, no reason to jump the gun as it were and waste time with a weak premise and an unsure out come. Patience Grasshopper. Not always the best advice, but in this case I believe it is and this was a no-harm no-foul.
November 9th, 2018 at 8:28 am
“Yes, the Second Amendment acknowledges certain inalienable rights … but how far should that go?” –Jerry the geek
If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, they are “declarative”, declaring the rights of the People, and “restrictive” of the government to “prevent usurpations and abuses”. The Federal Government has NO delegated powers the: the RKBA of the People and is restricted to only “governing such part of them (the militia) as may be called into its service and EMPLOYED” (Article I, Section 8.16). “Shall not be infringed” tells the Federal Government how far it can go and that without specific enumerated powers, according to the plain wording of the 10th Amendment, NO FURTHER.