Posted on 06/26/2017 10:51:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a major case out of California that asked whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms includes the right to carry firearms in public. By refusing to get involved, the Court left in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that denied constitutional recognition to the right to carry.
Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, blasted the Court for its failure to act and for its "distressing trend" of treating "the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."
According to Thomas, "the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." Thomas added, "even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively."
Thomas offered a sharply worded case for why the Court should have taken up the question. Federal circuits, he pointed out, have reached different conclusions and are therefore irrevocably split on this pressing constitutional matter. "This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to 'bear arms' means to 'wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I want to read what Gorsuch wrote about it.
if they can water down the 2nd amendment, they can water down anything in the bill of rights.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It says KEEP and BEAR arms.
Bear = Carry.
IT could not be any simpler or clearer.
Thomas needs to hang on as long as Ginsburg has..we need him. So far gorsuch looking like a good pick.
Somebody needs to water down judicial review.
Foray has signed Thomas’ objection to denial, so Gorsuch agrees completely with Thomas.
I think he sign onto thomas,opinion
But, but the “militia” means soldiers, so it only confers to the Army.
/lib speak
Sadly, traitors on the Supreme Court have a different view.
Until we get two more conservatives on the court, we are stuck with communist states denying 2nd Amendment rights and gay “marriage” being forced on all of us.
Can you just imagine how happy Thomas is to have Gorsuch there?!!
We sure do have a Conservative court... NOT!
And Oh BTW, if anyone cares, this decision ONLY applies to the parties involved in this particular case and stands if it is a constitutional decision. IT IS NOT NATIONAL LAW. The Constitution does not give federal courts including SCOTUS the power to make national law, only the power to decide INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES (U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec 2, Cl 1).
...that is if anyone cares about the Constitution being the supreme law of the land over the feds.
He joined Thomas’ opinion.
Remember. He just got put on the court and was able to join in or not on any case as he saw fit. He didn’t have that entire time to write that the remainder of the court has had.
Next up Ginsburg and Kennedy. Next year Souter and the following year Thomas.
So long as Trump sticks to his "list", we'll be good for the next 30 years.
Winning and winning and winning and...
I guess there is no Stare Decisis for Conservative court rulings.
Well so the Never Trumpsters and our Pearl Clutchers were wrong about Gorsuch.
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.