Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal of preliminary injunction in Jackson v. San Francisco

Gun Watch ^ | 9 June, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Second Amendment supporters were disappointed yesterday when the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a preliminary injunction in the case Jackson v.  San Francisco.   The preliminary injunction asked that the lower court ban the enforcement of the local ordinance in San Francisco while the case was being heard.  From scotusblog.com:

Raising significant new questions about how much protection the Constitution’s Second Amendment actually gives to gun owners, the Supreme Court on Monday left intact a local ordinance that restricts access to guns even within one’s own home.   The denial of review drew a fervent dissent from two Justices, who argued that the Court is narrowing the amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.”

The two justices that registered their willingness to hear the case were Justices Thomas and Scalia.  As usual, the court did not give any reason for refusing to hear the case.

The case itself is still to be heard by the Ninth Circuit.  Some will see the refusal to hear the appeal of the preliminary injunction as a signal by the Supreme Court to the Ninth Circuit that it is willing to tolerate more restrictions on Second Amendment rights, even in the home.

There has been much speculation about why the Supreme Court has been unwilling to undertake new Second Amendment cases in the last five years.

The mental gymnastics required in a number of cases decided by lower courts seem ripe for overturning, but the Supreme Court has refused them all.  Second Amendment supporters will continue to look to legislators to restore Second Amendment rights.   Success in the legislative arena may supersede pending Court cases.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The decision not to hear the appeal was made on 7 June, I believe.

[Flintlock]

The law is just too stupid to obey.

LIKEWISE the (bleeping) “supreme” court. To hell with them—back to common sense.

[smokingfrog]

Well, maybe the 9th circus will do the right thing.

[Cboldt]

-- maybe the 9th circus will do the right thing. --

While the procedural posture of the case is said to be a denial of preliminary injunction, the decision by the 9th Circuit is phrased as a decision on the merits. It has already held that the law being challenged is constitutional. There is no reason to think it would reverse itself.

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[caww]

Though many issues about gun control etc. are in the courts I think we all recognize that eventually there will be confiscation of guns etc. in our nation.

I say this because regardless of our Constitutional Rights we’ve watched Obama’s administration bypass Constitutional restraints without opposition strong enough to curtail him.

I think our Government operates now by what is “traded and deals made” that determine what is and will be. Only using the Constitution when it is to advantage.

The courts can certainly slow this down from happening...and thus far been pretty successful at keeping certain rights secure when it comes to gun ownership etc. How long this will continue is questionable but I believe the time will come where it simply won’t matter what the Constitution says.