Posted on 06/21/2020 5:10:26 AM PDT by marktwain
In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court has voted to deny certiorari (refuse to hear) ten Second Amendment cases which have been held at the court, some of which have been waiting for years.
Much speculation has been written about the cases, with the expectation the Supreme Court would hear at least one of them in order to clarify splits that have occurred in the circuit courts on the issues of carrying firearms outside the home, bans on gun magazines and semi-automatic rifles.
The court is believed to have four justices inclined to enforce the Second Amendment: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. There are four justices believed to wish to render the Second Amendment impotent and toothless: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Chief Justice Roberts is speculated as being the swing vote which could go either way. He voted for both the Heller and McDonald decisions to uphold the Second Amendment as written and applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Many conservatives see him as unreliable. Who knows what pressures are brought to bear on nine of the most powerful men and women in the world?
The Supreme Court does not tell us who voted for the denial of certiorari. We know two justices disagree strongly enough to dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I wonder if Roberts was a Friend Of Jeffrey .....
“Some” activist judges on the Supreme Court want to take away the right of the people to defend themselves.
JoMa
Dodging a bullet? :)
These people are going to be the cause of the next Civil War. If they will not protect our rights as the Founders saw them, we will have no recourse.
Hey, if the gubming wants to tax your guns at $20,000 per year each, well, it’s a tax.
“Inclined,” but not necessarily committed. It only takes four to grant certiorari and hear the case, so at least one of them is not voting to hear Second Amendment cases. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have all written or joined pretty vehement dissents complaining about the court’s refusal to take up Second Amendment cases. I don’t think Alito has ever done so, so, as hard as it is to believe when he was the one who wrote the McDonald opinion, it may be him.
The four justices who would uphold the Second Amendment will not accept a gun case right now because they don’t trust Roberts to vote the right way.
That makes perfect sense but it begs the question,
How to get rid of Roberts? Or, alternatively, RBG and at least one other lib? Last time I checked, Supreme Court appointments were for life.
My court expert, Zen Master (who has yet to be wrong), says it’s impossible to explain why the USSC doesn’t take Cert cases.
Just one example: mootness is viewed very strongly by the Court. Namely, it does not want to waste precious time on cases that are no longer active. They may have a relevant principle, but if no one currently is being harmed, the Court will NOT take up hypothetical cases. This was the issue in the NY gun transportation case. The law says that mootness is the guiding principle unless it is proven by the claimant that the state will reimpose said law.
In NYC’s case, it has not reimposed said law. Right now, there is no harm related to the gun transport issue. Hence, the Court won’t take it.
For example, a Louisiana case related to churches violating Gov. John Bel Edwards’ edict of no gatherings. He rescinded that, so the appellate court called it moot. However, the court did NOT call moot a second suit involving harms that occurred DURING the edict, and that proceeds.
My guess is that the extremely numerous gun cases were viewed as not significant enough to warrant a general USSC ruling. I don’t think the Court will refuse a gun case, rather I think it must be persuaded that there are overwhelming 2nd Amendment rights at risk, because the Court knows that like Brown v. Board of Ed., the next big ruling in favor of guns will restructure entire cities’ gun laws.
Let me explain the flip side of this coin.
There are also four justices who would love to grind our 2A rights into the dust for all time. What prevents Ginsberg and friends from taking a few 2A cases and minimizing our freedoms forever by enshrining rosters, extreme limits on carry, ammo restrictions, magazine limits, etc.?
The only thing that prevents this is fear of Roberts as a wild card. He might vote to uphold our rights.
So we have an uneasy truce, where nothing of consequence is decided and states are allowed to infringe. If the antis thought that they had a sure thing, there are enough of them right now to take any 2A case they want and destroy our rights.
This is why I am an avid, almost rabid, Trump supporter. We need one more reliable Justice, and if he is re-elected we will get one. Quite possibly two.
My take on it is this: the USSC upheld the Second Amendment as written already. What would be the point of bringing it up again? Because Roberts may not vote the right way? If Roberts was going to go astray on 2A, wouldn't he have done so already in the Heller and McDonald decisions?
In the Heller decision specifically, the Second Amendment "as written" means what it says means nothing more needs to be said.
What am I missing here?
He's dead, Jim.
Great insight.
The eight states, containing a quarter of the United States population, which are constantly ignoring Heller and McDonald, and infringing on Second Amendment rights on a regular basis.
In a way, this is a good thing. Hold back on these until a solid majority is in place to overcome CJ Roberts and his self-appointed role as guardian of the deep state.
“Dodging a bullet? :)”
I think so.
I agree they are, what else is the USSC supposed to do other than say "The Second Amendment stands as written?" What more needs to be said?
The voters of those eight states (and I'm in one of them) are responsible to vote for politicians that will put in place / remove as necessary, judges that infringe on their citizens rights. Absent that, voters and gun owners can "vote with their feet" and leave those states for more 2A friendly states (and I'm in the process of doing that myself.)
They should strike down, as unconstitutional, the laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights. This is exactly what they are refusing to do.
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.