Posted on 04/15/2013 5:53:28 PM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court, following a pattern that is now quite well established, chose again on Monday to remain on the sidelines as the national debate over gun ownership heats up in the political realm. Without comment, the Justices denied review of the latest attempt to test whether the Second Amendment right to have a gun extends beyond the home.
The denial of review in Kachalsky v. Cacace (docket 12-845) was the latest in a series of denials of attempts to get the Justices to explore the reach of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing a Second Amendment right to have a gun for personal self-defense. That decision, though, was limited to a right to have a gun ready to shoot inside one’s own home.
In the Heller decision, the Court emphasized that the personal right it was recognizing for the first time was not an “absolute” right, and that gun ownership could be subjected to “reasonable” regulations. It provided some examples, such as having a gun in a sensitive public place, but that list was not intended to be complete. That has left it to Congress and to state legislatures to decide whether they want to impose new forms of gun control.
Because the Court does not explain orders denying review, there is no way to know why the Justices would again choose not to get involved in a controversy that, in essence, the Heller decision itself has deepened. One of the most common reasons for the Justices to grant review is the existence of a split among lower courts on a significant constitutional issue. There is now such a clear split among federal appeals courts on whether constitutional gun rights extend beyond the home, and yet that was not sufficient to draw the Court back into the center of the controversy in the new case from New York. The new case sought to test the constitutionality of limiting a citizen’s right to a license to carry a concealed gun in public to those who can show they have a “proper cause” for their belief that they need a gun for self-defense away from home.
Strong supporters of gun rights have argued that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller was sweeping in scope, while supporters of gun control have argued that the decision leaves legislators with wide leeway to impose new restrictions. There will be no final resolution of that dispute, as a constitutional matter, until the Supreme Court chooses to decide it.
Are to a point where there are NO Patriots in any of the 3 “Co-Equal” branches? Do they NOT understand that the Constitution is a CONTRACT? Or, are they just so corrupt that they are willing to destroy from the inside what so many sacrificed so much to create & maintain against the world’s constant efforts to destroy us from the outside?
I am so sick of this bunch.
Maybe with the appearance of the real threat to Americans safety, the gun grab will go away.
R. A left hand treaded screw, at that.
I suspect the three conservatives on the court refused to allow the traitor Roberts an opportunity to further hurt The 2nd. I suspect Kennedy sided with them and The Wise Latina and The Kindergartner were ordered by Obama to stay in their high chairs and leave it alone until they finished eating their plastic cups of Cheerios.
Because the Court does not explain orders denying review, there is no way to know why the Justices would again choose not to get involved in a controversy that, in essence, the Heller decision itself has deepened.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court needn't trouble itself to explain things to the commoners?
“Strong supporters of gun rights have argued that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller was sweeping in scope, while supporters of gun control have argued that the decision leaves legislators with wide leeway to impose new restrictions. There will be no final resolution of that dispute, as a constitutional matter, until the Supreme Court chooses to decide it.”
Unfortunately carving unwritten exceptions in to the “shall now be abridged” clause of the 2nd amendment only serves to not only belie that amendment ‘s clear text it created and unbounded dictatorial power among the federal employees in black robes.
The fact that the Federal employees have chosen to again illegally incorporate Federal amendments against the States has only raised the political stakes of their edicts and removed the States as a vital test-bed for liberty.
A simple literal reading of the 2nd amendment applies only to the Federal government and prohibits All Federal Gun restrictions, but leaves fascist States like New York & Illinois alone to find out how bad bad can get.
“Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court needn’t trouble itself to explain things to the commoners?”
Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal Supreme court has the final word on The law that defines their own limits?
The Federal court has all sorts of unworkable and frankly dictatorial powers that they have given to themselves.
The Federal court has all sorts of unworkable and frankly dictatorial powers that they have given to themselves.
When we restore our constitutional republic, we're going to have to ensure the Supreme Court develops a better attitud.
Supreme Court won’t hear New York gun law challenge
New York's Assault Weapon Registration Begins
The Bloomberg Presidency - Obama puts the priorities of the elite over the people
Down the Drain - How the federal government flushed away the $833 billion stimulus
Climate changing for global warming journalists Check the video. Bill Gates denies a link with extreme weather events.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
When Checks and Balances have been compromised, we are finished.
That’s all, folks. We’re laboring under a tyranny.
Scalia was dishonest in the Heller decision too, transmogrifying the holding of the Miller decision so as to convert unconstitutional law to constitutional, as long as the courts stand by and let the violation go on for long enough that the violation becomes "long standing."
SCOTUS is a corrupt as the other two branches, when if comes to aggrandizing power to the hands of the federal government.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision [the second amendment] in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections [of Illinois law] under consideration [essentially parade permitting law] do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Review of most cases by SCOTUS is discretionary, and is not provided as a matter of right. Anyway, see Article III for the short version.
You can't expect a modern branch of the federal government to take power away from the federal government. Maybe 80 years ago, but not now. The government is completely out of control. Not to worry, it'll collapse of its own weight.
“A simple literal reading of the 2nd amendment applies only to the Federal government and prohibits All Federal Gun restrictions, but leaves fascist States like New York & Illinois alone to find out how bad bad can get.”
This is true as to the first amendment “congress shall make no law...” but not as to the second. “Shall not be infringed.” Doesn’t limit it to congress.
The government is completely out of control. Not to worry, it'll collapse of its own weight.
I think you're right, Cboldt. The feral government's collapse doesn't trouble me 1% as much as the likelihood millions of ordinary citizens will be crushed beneath its prodigious bulk.
Gun Owners of America’s Take-Action Alert Page
http://www.capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/?style=D
Click on the most recent Alert link.
Right now it’s “The Battle Will Take Longer than We’d Hoped.”
This will take you to a page with a pre-written letter. Just put in your personal info and the page will figure out which Senator or Representative to send it to. If you leave ‘Remember Me!’ checked you will only have to fill it in once. Then you can return and send it quickly multiple times a day. Let’s say, every time you read some 2nd Amendment news that you don’t care for.
(I’m going to post this link in multiple threads so many people will see it and, hopefully, put it to use.)
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.