Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws
Reuters ^ | Feb 24, 2014 | LAWRENCE HURLEY

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; docket; lawsuit; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: neverdem

Crooked lawyers with black robes.


21 posted on 02/25/2014 10:55:58 AM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomServo
They can’t shoot us all.

With the number of rounds of ammo they have bough over the last few years, they certainly could shoot us all many times over, especially if we stood still.

22 posted on 02/25/2014 11:02:42 AM PST by itsahoot (Voting for RINOs is the same as voting for any other Tyrant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]



We are within striking distance for yellow today!

Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!

Make a difference.

PLEASE Contribute Today!

Woo hoo!! Less than $600 to the yellow!! We can do this.

23 posted on 02/25/2014 11:17:33 AM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
I'm not expert in gun law history, but federal gun laws for civilians seem to appear in the books during the FDR's presidency when the federal government began to blatantly ignore its constitutionally-limited powers.

Also, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. See the 2nd Amendment in Bingham's discussion roughly in the middle of the 2nd column of the page at the following link.

Appendix to the Congressional Globe

24 posted on 02/25/2014 11:33:36 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
With the number of rounds of ammo they have bought over the last few years, they certainly could shoot us all many times over, especially if we stood still.

And didn't shoot back.

25 posted on 02/25/2014 11:34:20 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Free people don’t need to ask permission.


26 posted on 02/25/2014 11:35:41 AM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

Aren’t those children grown by now? How old are they?


27 posted on 02/25/2014 11:38:07 AM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The fix is in?


28 posted on 02/25/2014 11:38:16 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
Let the lower courts do the dirty work, then decline to enter the fray.

That's essentially the Congress's approach:

  1. Create bureaucracies, allow them to make rules/regulations which must be obeyed under penalty of law, then wring their hands about executive overreach… even though they could (1) repeal the laws referencing the rules/regulations, (2) dissolve the agencies directly, or (3) utterly deny the agency funding.
  2. Allow the Federal Reserve to make monetary policy, and then when people don't like it and want financial accountability, hide under the fact that the Federal Reserve is private entity.

29 posted on 02/25/2014 11:40:41 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

I believe that federal law currently prohibits the sale of handguns or ammo for them to anyone under 21.


30 posted on 02/25/2014 11:41:27 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

“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...”

Nothing in there about handguns, that is what my comment was about.

It may be a law in some states, but it isn’t federal.


31 posted on 02/25/2014 11:52:16 AM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

The Court often denies cert repeatedly on some issues before eventually taking up the issue in the right case.


32 posted on 02/25/2014 11:57:34 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Thanks for the link!


33 posted on 02/25/2014 12:00:26 PM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
even though they could (1) repeal the laws referencing the rules/regulations, (2) dissolve the agencies directly, or (3) utterly deny the agency funding.

Legislatures can also make any law beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, which they create and fund.

34 posted on 02/25/2014 12:07:49 PM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto

Right, but I was commenting on how the technique of letting subordinates run amok and then take no interest in restraining them is also employed by our congress.


35 posted on 02/25/2014 12:11:10 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I believe it takes only the votes of four justices for the court to take a case.

I'm fairly certain that's true.

Obviously at least 6 justices didn’t think there was anything to decide and that the lower court was right.

I don't thick that's true. Anthony Kennedy is big on individual rights. He was in the majority in Heller and McDonald. I believe it's split 4 - 4. Neither side trusts Roberts now, IMHO.

36 posted on 02/25/2014 12:20:36 PM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

bkmk


37 posted on 02/25/2014 12:54:46 PM PST by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The court will decline any case that strengthens gun rights.
They accept all cases where they can weaken them.

The US courts are no longer on our side.


38 posted on 02/25/2014 1:09:59 PM PST by CodeToad (Keeping whites from talking about blacks is verbal segregation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
"When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt,
but protects the corrupt from you -
you know your nation is doomed."

-Ayn Rand

39 posted on 02/25/2014 1:12:28 PM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Some perspective here, folks. It took SC(R)OTUS over 70 years to take on Heller from the last seminal 2A case which was Miller.

As it stands, the really interesting case is the one in the 9th circus. That one is not ripe for an appeal to SC(R)OTUS until we see what happens en banc. If it stands en banc, then I think we’ll have a day in court.

Heller notwithstanding, I’m not a fan of the go-to-court strategy. Trusting our liberties to 9 political hacks in black muumuus just doesn’t appeal to me.


40 posted on 02/25/2014 1:43:11 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Liberty in our Lifetime - WWW.FreeStateProject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson