Skip to comments.
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case
Washington Examiner ^
| 6-26-17
| Ryan Lovelace
Posted on 06/26/2017 6:58:58 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case
More at link
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; gorsuch; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
To: aMorePerfectUnion
2
posted on
06/26/2017 7:00:32 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: aMorePerfectUnion
“More at link”
I would hope so considering your posting contains nothing but a headline
To: traderrob6
But what decision DID they leave in place????
4
posted on
06/26/2017 7:02:21 AM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
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.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
It was a CA court ruling so you can bet it’s not good news.
6
posted on
06/26/2017 7:04:28 AM PDT
by
gibsonguy
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
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.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
***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.
8
posted on
06/26/2017 7:10:55 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired US Army chaplain. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory.)
To: xzins
Sounds to me like local sheriffs are in charge of your concealed/open carry gun rights if they think you dont have some specific issue making carry a necessity for you.
That's correct.
9
posted on
06/26/2017 7:11:35 AM PDT
by
TexasGunLover
("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Goresuch could turn out to be a nightmare.
10
posted on
06/26/2017 7:15:15 AM PDT
by
bramps
(It's the Islam, stupid!)
To: bramps
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.***
11
posted on
06/26/2017 7:18:13 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired US Army chaplain. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory.)
To: xzins
[[Sounds to me like local sheriffs are in charge of your concealed/open carry gun rights if they think you dont 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
12
posted on
06/26/2017 7:24:03 AM PDT
by
Bob434
To: xzins
where the hell are the other conservative judges on this issue?
13
posted on
06/26/2017 7:24:51 AM PDT
by
Bob434
To: aMorePerfectUnion
So a local sheriff can decide whether or not an American citizen can exercise their second amendment right?
Great. Just great. /sarc
14
posted on
06/26/2017 7:25:03 AM PDT
by
murrie
(Mark Levin: Prosecuting stupidity nightly.)
To: Bob434
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.
15
posted on
06/26/2017 7:28:14 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired US Army chaplain. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory.)
To: bramps
“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.
16
posted on
06/26/2017 7:29:35 AM PDT
by
House Atreides
(Send BOTH Hillary & Bill to prison.)
To: AnotherUnixGeek
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.
To: aMorePerfectUnion
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.
18
posted on
06/26/2017 7:32:05 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Fourth estate? Ha! Our media has become the KCOTUS, the Kangaroo Court of the United States.)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
.
Neil Gorsuch is turning out to be a total dud!
Are all of these judges insane?
.
19
posted on
06/26/2017 7:34:29 AM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
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.
20
posted on
06/26/2017 7:38:10 AM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson