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

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 1-2021-4041-54 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2017 6:58:58 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
SCOTUS Orders - June 26, 2017

Thomas's dissent in Peruta is in there.

2 posted on 06/26/2017 7:00:32 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

“More at link”

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


3 posted on 06/26/2017 7:01:03 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.


5 posted on 06/26/2017 7:03:52 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.
7 posted on 06/26/2017 7:06:58 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.
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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins

[[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


12 posted on 06/26/2017 7:24:03 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.


17 posted on 06/26/2017 7:30:23 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 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.

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