FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 02/25/2014 10:10:08 AM PST by neverdem
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws.
The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges.
The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public.
The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21...
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Pretty much the left owns every political position they want. The gun thing was the last one they didn’t have control of.
I believe it takes only the votes of four justices for the court to take a case. Obviously at least 6 justices didn’t think there was anything to decide and that the lower court was right.
Let the lower courts do the dirty work, then decline to enter the fray.
Nice.
Obama approves.
Congress is AWOL. Again.
These are puny peripheral issues.
The important cases are the state bans of semi-auto rifles, and the defacto state bans on bearing arms outside the home.
They won’t duck those.
And once it is established that the “right to bear arms” includes carrying a loaded pistol outside the home, it will then be the right time to extend that to 18-20 year old adults.
The case in which DC residents can’t buy in VA will be largely addressed when DC gets their rights more fully restored.
C O W A R D S ! ! ! ! !.................
Ahh just to take a trip down to NSA and see all the dirt they’ve dug up on all the SC Justices and congressional members. I wonder how many terrabytes they have stored on just them alone. I bet it would be interesting reading...: )
In my opinion, someone wants these cases to wait until there are more leftists on the the SCROTUS.
I agree.
Often times the justices don’t grant cert because they don’t want to lose and be stuck with the precedent.
I would be willing to bet the lefties were happy to leave the lower court opinions in place, and our guys on the “right” were scared of either Kennedy or Roberts.
I know I would be conflicted, unless I had some assurances beforehand that my side would win.
Who gives a crap what the law says anymore about this?
We have a lawless president, a lawless AG and a lawless congress.
Why should we worry about laws when they aren’t enforced by the “lawmakers” or “enforcers”?
They can’t shoot us all.
After the disastrous ruling on Obummer care I have NO faith in Roberts. It is a 5-4 court. I do not know what the bastards have on Roberts but it must be big. So I do not want them to take another run at the 2nd. This is not what we wanted but all things considered it be could be worse..much worse.
They won’t duck those.
Don't be so sure. In 2010 the court denied cert in People v. James, a case challenging California's assault weapons ban.link
They've also denied cert in several carry permit cases:
the Court denied review in Kachalsky v. Cacace, a case in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York law prohibiting the issuance of a concealed carry permit unless the applicant can demonstrate that good cause exists to issue the permit. The Court also denied review in Woollard v. Gallagher and Williams v. State of Maryland, cases challenging a similar concealed carry permit scheme in Maryland. link
"Those are nice looking kids you got there; Be a real shame if someone sent them back to Ireland.."
“...dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21...”
There is no federal law against selling guns/ammo to those under 21.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Whatever they have on Roberts, they had long before he was even nominated. That means he should never have been nominated.
The important cases are the state bans of semi-auto rifles, and the defacto state bans on bearing arms outside the home.
They won’t duck those.
We shall see.
San Diego Sheriff will not seek 9th Circuit en banc in Peruta right to carry case
Assuming that the San Diego Sheriff does not file a petition for a writ of certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court still has an available case to consider right to carry. Drake v. Jerejian is an appeal from a Third Circuit decision upholding New Jersey’s carry licensing system, under which almost no-one is ever issued in a permit. (Scotusblog docket for the case is here.) Several amicus briefs were filed in support of the petition, including one written by Wyoming Attorney General Michael and joined by the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. Lead attorney in the Drake case is Alan Gura, winner of District of Columbia v. Heller.
Basically the SCOTUS refusing to wade into politically turbulent waters because they’re wusses. That was why they were given lifelong employment, to be able to stay above such considerations. Another in a long line of indicators that our republic no longer works.
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.