Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case

Washington Examiner ^ | 6-26-17 | Ryan Lovelace

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case

More at link

[Cboldt]

SCOTUS Orders - June 26, 2017

Thomas's dissent in Peruta is in there.

[traderrob6]

“More at link”

I would hope so considering your posting contains nothing but a headline

[Robert A Cook PE]

But what decision DID they leave in place????

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Another loss for concealed-carry in California - and since the Supremes let the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling stand, it could have implications in other states.

[gibsonguy]

It was a CA court ruling so you can bet it’s not good news.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

But what decision DID they leave in place????

From the article:

"California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant."

The ruling which stands is that the sheriff's policy does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

[xzins]

***But in San Diego, the sheriff defined “good cause” as requiring a “particularized” need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.***

9th circuit agreed with a san diego sheriff in that. Scotus just left it in place.

Sounds to me like local sheriffs are in charge of your concealed/open carry gun rights if they think you don’t have some specific issue making carry a necessity for you.

[TexasGunLover]

Sounds to me like local sheriffs are in charge of your concealed/open carry gun rights if they think you don’t have some specific issue making carry a necessity for you.

That's correct.

[bramps]

Goresuch could turn out to be a nightmare.

[xzins]

Why do you say that? He’s one of only 2 who disagreed.

***Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court’s decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.***

[Bob434]

[[Sounds to me like local sheriffs are in charge of your concealed/open carry gun rights if they think you don’t have some specific issue making carry a necessity for you.]]

That’s\ exactly what it is- and for the SC not to take this issue up is astonishing=- califormia is clearly violating the second amendment- there is no constitutional requirement that someone must show ‘need’ before they can be issued a right to own and carry

[Bob434]

where the hell are the other conservative judges on this issue?

[murrie]

So a local sheriff can decide whether or not an American citizen can exercise their second amendment right?

Great. Just great. /sarc

[xzins]

Thomas and Gorsuch were on the right side. Roberts and Kennedy are wishy washy or paid off, one or the other.

Alito really surprises me.

[House Atreides]

“Goresuch could turn out to be a nightmare.”
******************************
It's WAY too early to reach such a conclusion. Sometimes a Justice will support not taking a case AT THE PRESENT TIME when he/she is not sure the decision would go his/her way. I suspect that may be the case here. When one more of the liberal/swing Supreme Court judges retires/dies & is replaced I suspect certiorari will be granted upon resubmital.

[Mr Rogers]

If the Supreme Court refuses to take a case, it doesn’t mean anything. They reject hearing the vast majority of cases. They also will sometimes reject hearing a case because they believe another case will make it easier to deal with the root issues.

And in this case, conservatives on the court might have rejected it because they believe they need another judge to replace Kennedy or the Liberal Four, and thus hearing the case WOULD set a precedence they don’t want. It might make good tactical sense to wait and hope Trump gets another judge or two on the court and THEN decide it based on the Constitution instead of DNC talking points.

[DoughtyOne]

If second amendment rights are not universal, then racial laws are not universal.

Can’t play both side of the fence on this “children”.

I expect my Constitutional rights to be honored too.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Neil Gorsuch is turning out to be a total dud!

Are all of these judges insane?
.

[Mariner]

The majority of the USSC KNEW what the outcome of this case would have to be, therefore they are delaying it’s eventual ruling for political reasons.

Eventually the CA law will be overturned. But it will take another 3-7 years and ANOTHER, different case.