Supreme Ct Turns Away Gun Appeal

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a CA case that held that restrictions on carry permits were allowable.

 

But J. Gorsuch (along with J. Thomas) dissented vigorously, with language that should ring in the ears of the rest of the Court:

 

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/justices-thomas-gorsuch-blast-court-decision-to-reject-gun-rights-appeal.html

 

LL

[Cat Brules]

Do like I do..........

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

It has to make you wonder which of these is maybe true:

 

Bearing in mind that the court does not need to explain its reasons for NOT hearing a case, and that there may be a number of differing reasons why each member declines to hear any case:

1. Some may believe that the lower Court ruling is acceptable (although maybe for differing reasons);
2. Some may believe that the particular facts of this case are not the best upon which to expand (or contract) the right to carry, and they are better off to wait for a case with better facts;
3. Some know that the composition of the Court is about to change again (rumors of Kennedy's retirement), and want to wait (for any number of reasons) for his replacement before deciding this issue;
4. Some simply want to delay any movement on gun issues;
5. Some may be aware of another gun case working its way up the appeals process, and want to delay this one in favor of that other one, or to combine the hearing and arguments.

Lots of speculation; no facts.

 

Come on, ladies and gents; this is not the time to be faint of heart!

 

LL

[Rye Miles #13621]

I knew I was gonna like this Gorsuch!!

[Sedalia Dave]

3 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

It has to make you wonder which of these is maybe true:

 

Bearing in mind that the court does not need to explain its reasons for NOT hearing a case, and that there may be a number of differing reasons why each member declines to hear any case:

1. Some may believe that the lower Court ruling is acceptable (although maybe for differing reasons);
2. Some may believe that the particular facts of this case are not the best upon which to expand (or contract) the right to carry, and they are better off to wait for a case with better facts;
3. Some know that the composition of the Court is about to change again (rumors of Kennedy's retirement), and want to wait (for any number of reasons) for his replacement before deciding this issue;
4. Some simply want to delay any movement on gun issues;
5. Some may be aware of another gun case working its way up the appeals process, and want to delay this one in favor of that other one, or to combine the hearing and arguments.

Lots of speculation; no facts.

 

Come on, ladies and gents; this is not the time to be faint of heart!

 

LL

 

Lets pray it is so.

[Roscoe Regulator]

They have been stalling on the 14th Amendment applying to the 2nd for 150 years.

[Chantry]

Keep in mind that Justice Kennedy is a swing vote and it could be very possible, depending on the case, that he would side with the liberals in a 2A case.

 

I also think 2, 3, & 5 are also very good reasons they may have decided not to take the case.

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 hours ago, Roscoe Regulator said:

They have been stalling on the 14th Amendment applying to the 2nd for 150 years.

 

McDonald,  2010, incorporated the 2nd against the state's.

 

It could be that with the reciprocity Bill in congress they want to wait and watch.  That would have a huge impact on Peruta.

[Roscoe Regulator]

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

McDonald,  2010, incorporated the 2nd against the state's.

 

It could be that with the reciprocity Bill in congress they want to wait and watch.  That would have a huge impact on Peruta.

If that's true, it raises the question of why it has no visible effect. For example, States would have no authority to impose licensing requirements or to require concealment of handguns. Either would be an "infringement". That is why there is nothing comparable at a federal level.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

1 minute ago, Roscoe Regulator said:

If that's true, it raises the question of why it has no visible effect. For example, States would have no authority to impose licensing requirements or to require concealment of handguns. Either would be an "infringement". That is why there is nothing comparable at a federal level.

 

It's one thing for a Federal right to be established or clarified by an appellate decision.

 

It's quite another for someone in a state to challenge his own state's infringement of that right, and then work his way through a chain of appeals until the state yields.

 

LL

[Roscoe Regulator]

2 minutes ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

It's one thing for a Federal right to be established or clarified by an appellate decision.

 

It's quite another for someone in a state to challenge his own state's infringement of that right, and then work his way through a chain of appeals until the state yields.

 

LL

Meanwhile the chain of courts refuses to hear the cases without explanation. Again, effectively the 14th does not apply to the 2nd Amendment until we experience it..