Supreme Court refuses to challenge gun laws

Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
2,234
Likes
365
Feedback: 42 / 0 / 0
The United States Supreme Court has decided not to hear challenges to recent rulings that upheld firearms restrictions, dealing a blow to gun rights advocates hoping the justices would declare them unconstitutional.

"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home," the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

Full story here: http://on.rt.com/23knc2
 
Last edited:
So, does the pro-2a ruling by the 9th Circuit court become the law?

That's a whole separate issue. The cases denied today were the two 18-20 year old cases out of TX and the case over the impossibility of buying a handgun in DC while the only FFL had no business premises.
 
this should be enough.... no? [thinking]


"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home,"
the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."
 
this should be enough.... no? [thinking]


"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home,"
the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

My thoughts exactly
 
this should be enough.... no? [thinking]


"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home,"
the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

When, who, or what court case was this from?

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
 
Down side is that states like MA will not care about 9th circuit.

But this little tidbit they should care about ...

"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home," the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

I read this as... allow open carry or you must be a shall issue permit state!
 
But this little tidbit they should care about ...

"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home," the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."

I read this as... allow open carry or you must be a shall issue permit state!

Again, why should they?
 
If anything, this telegraphs that the Court is goign to take up a case on point with respect to the right to carry. The cases do also seem to be on the periphery of the main issue. Sometimes the Court just clears the way. It may also be something like they could not get a good polarity going one way or the other so why take it up.
 
It just doesnt matter. As long as there is the slightest bit of wiggle room in the case law, the state's incentive is to legislate first and litigate second. Heller left open a little wiggle room and it is being exploited big time. SCOTUS will never draw a line in the sand.
 
This isn't bad, it just means the right case has not come along. Expect that the California decision and perhaps New Jersey come forward as situations where a fundemental right is infringed clearly, and no compelling government interest ie demonstrating a "need" to exercise a Civil Right is not going to fly. There has to be a distinction between the Shall Issue states, and those like NJ, MA, and CA that only issue permits on the basis of need/arbitrarily issue permits. If SCOTUS wants to issue a ruling about carrying firearms outside the home they will do so on narrow grounds - basically they need a case where they can say "you must issue a permit to carry outside the home" unless there is a compelling state interest against it, without getting into broad philisophical issues surrounding the 2A. The court is not going to dismantle the background check system, or attack AWB's in one case.

- - - Updated - - -

*********
Unfortunately you are correct.
They don't have to, not binding. However, what might happen is some Chiefs of Police may seek the advice of counsel, and try to get a read on what is coming down the pike. If a Chief thinks he is going to be on the wrong side of Con law in the next few years, he or she may move to start issuing permits.
 
Some me people will never get it. :(

I get the understanding of "it" but do not agree with "it".

Until a viable libertarian who stands a chance and until the middle of America wants to vote for that type of candidate happens, why the hell would you give up all hope and give it away to the likes of Markey.

Who would do more harm to you as a gun owner? Scott Brown or Ed Markey? It's not voting the "less of two evils". I hate that term. You vote for what's available. And the best of what's available on the Ballot. If you don't you get Ed Markey introducing James Bond bills.

Most middle of the road Republicans can be kept in check by the RNC and various PACs not matter what they say there stance is. After all it's all about the campaign money.

Furthermore what type of judges do you want hearing these cases? Ones appointed from the left or right.

Sorry but elections do matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I get the understanding of "it" but do not agree with "it".

Until a viable libertarian who stands a chance and until the middle of America wants to vote for that type of candidate happens, why the hell would you give up all hope and give it away to the likes of Markey.

Who would do more harm to you as a gun owner? Scott Brown or Ed Markey? It's not voting the "less of two evils". I hate that term. You vote for what's available. And the best of what's available on the Ballot. If you don't you get Ed Markey introducing James Bond bills.

Most middle of the road Republicans can be kept in check by the RNC and various PACs not matter what they say there stance is. After all it's all about the campaign money.

Furthermore what type of judges do you want hearing these cases? Ones appointed from the left or right.

Sorry but elections do matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. At this point it's either elect a candidate that is not obsessively anti or give your vote to the likes of lunatics like Markey. That is the reality of the situation until a liberty-minded candidate is universally accepted by the majority the Kommonwealth.
 
I get the understanding of "it" but do not agree with "it".

Until a viable libertarian who stands a chance and until the middle of America wants to vote for that type of candidate happens, why the hell would you give up all hope and give it away to the likes of Markey.

Who would do more harm to you as a gun owner? Scott Brown or Ed Markey? It's not voting the "less of two evils". I hate that term. You vote for what's available. And the best of what's available on the Ballot. If you don't you get Ed Markey introducing James Bond bills.

Most middle of the road Republicans can be kept in check by the RNC and various PACs not matter what they say there stance is. After all it's all about the campaign money.

Furthermore what type of judges do you want hearing these cases? Ones appointed from the left or right.

Sorry but elections do matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
******
My sentiments exactly but some people will never "get it". Unfortunately we are at the point were I look at candidates and say to myself, what candidate will do less damage me/us. I guess 71 montess doesn't vote.
 
I agree. At this point it's either elect a candidate that is not obsessively anti or give your vote to the likes of lunatics like Markey. That is the reality of the situation until a liberty-minded candidate is universally accepted by the majority the Kommonwealth.
*****
It will never happen in this repressive State.
 
Sorry but elections do matter.

Yes, elections do matter but nominating the right candidates from the beginning matters more. People must get involved in their town committees (Republican or if you're so inclined - DemoRAT). This way you can exert at least SOME influence over which candidates are being supported/nominated in your district, especially at the town and State rep levels. By the time the nominating conventions are over, it's too late to do anything about the crap candidates who've been nominated to MISrepresent us in the general election.

Am I wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom