Posted on 06/26/2017 7:15:55 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up two Second Amendment cases for next term. The first case dealt with a San Diego ordinance that required San Diego gun owners to have a good reason to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. The second case concerned two men from Pennsylvania who challenged the scope of a federal law that bans felons and some individuals charged with misdemeanors from possessing firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Sorry, FRiend, my post 20 was meant for another thread.
Does not bode well for a national reciprocity bill if the Court is not willing to overturn, or even review, lower court decisions that keep control at the state level.
I read it the exact opposite way... that the ruling wouldn’t have been required if there was a national reciprocity bill. The heart of the issue (for one of the cases) was that one sheriff had a much tougher interpretation of good cause. That would be a moot point if the same Sheriff had to honor permits from other states.
Better than MA, where every COP in all 351 towns and cities makes-up his own rules.
"I read it the exact opposite way... that the ruling wouldn’t have been required if there was a national reciprocity bill. The heart of the issue (for one of the cases) was that one sheriff had a much tougher interpretation of good cause. That would be a moot point if the same Sheriff had to honor permits from other states."
I don't think we want a SC precedent until there are 5 firm 2A votes. Kennedy may be getting squishy in his old age. Better to wait until Kennedy AND Ginsburg retire.
I am not poking at you personally, so you don’t need to give the Supremes a call on my account.
However, I would like to know what you mean by “Heller needs to play out”. When the Supreme court makes a ruling and the lower courts ignore the ruling, where legally does that leave us? I am not an attorney, but its would seem that you either smack down the bad ruling from the lower court, or you leave ambiguity in the law. Seems like the correct course of action is impeachment of the lower court, but that requires a congress that takes their constitutional duties seriously.
That’s what I’m thinking. Blessing in disguise. A couple of more Trump cards on the court would make me feel better about a case like this being decided.
Grazie Dio! :)
Was. Like other coastal cities before it, San Diego is falling to the progs.
Good. Wait until Kennedy is gone.
Thanks for posting this opinion. Let’s be clear on some points anyone can see after reading it.
1. The plaintiffs really wanted the broader question of “can states limit how one carries a firearm within their borders” answered. In other words, the original case was to sue over restricting concealed carry to only those with a “clear reason” but it had broader implications.
2. The plaintiffs already won the more narrow goal (narrow relatively speaking of course) which was to get the sheriff’s demand to show “clear reason” off the books. As the opinion you linked shows, the Ninth Circuit (amazingly) actually overturned that requirement and called it unconstitutional so it’s no more. One can now carry a concealed weapon in San Diego county without having to jump through additional regulatory hoops (although you still have to have a license/permit get a background check etc). But you don’t have to give a “good reason” to do so anymore.
What is disappointing here, but not necessarily distressing (I guess depending how much of an issue this is for you the reader) is that the SC has declined to take up the larger issue mentioned in point 1 above and for which the plaintiffs continued their case. The SC doesn’t want to touch the larger issue of “how much regulatory authority does a state have over how a firearm is transported in public” apparently.
And this is what Thomas and Gorsich are saying: the Court should take up this case now because enough lower courts have ruled on cases such as this and this question (point 1) is of enough importance that there needs to be a definitive ruling on it. There’s been enough dancing around the larger issue in other words, that’s what Thomas and Gorsich are saying.
Bottom line though, at least, there haven’t been any back steps taken. No progress on the issue granted (states can still regulate the hell out of firearm use) but at least it’s not possible (for now) for the state of California to say to its citizens, “you can’t carry openly nor can you carry concealed” which is in effect banning the 2nd Amendment. That’s why the Ninth had to rule as it did, but in their cowardice refused to take up the larger issue in point 1. And now so has the SC.
So all we can do is keep bringing cases like this that show incremental encroachment, via onerous regulation, on the 2nd Amendment and hope some court if not the SC will take up this larger issue at some point. But in conclusion again at least for now there hasn’t been MORE encroachment, or destruction, of the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, the “rights” the left believes in not only do not require articulable justification to exercise, other people are required to PAY FOR IT by force!
>
so i n otherwords the SC is allowing a state to violate the second amendment? There ks nothing in the constitution which puts the requirement to ‘show a need’ before one is allowed the right to carry
>
Sorry, but you lost the debate right there.
There is NO need for any ‘allowance’ (IE: request permission) to utilize one’s Rights.
Does seem though that the SC is failing in its due diligence of ‘being’. Course Congress and the (R) ‘leadership’ isn’t helping the matter either. Nor the Pres. sending in the guard to ensure Rights are upheld and protected.
>
The message is Do Not Live In California and Do Not Be A Criminal.
Let’s pass HR 38 for the reciprocity.
>
You mean EX-criminal, aka Free Men aka Citizens w/ all Rights and privileges afforded; else, they should be behind bars.
2nd, I know of no bill/Law that will settle what 27 words (supposedly) cannot.
Lastly, acknowledging that a CC is the ‘baseline’ (reciprocity), you’ve effectively killed the 2nd A. as a Right. ‘Reciprocity’ already occurs in a few States: Constitutional carry. Don’t need HR 58 to dilute/null that fact.
Being a CA resident, it’s a bummer to hear this news. However, we have Nichols in the pipeline that is very winnable and will reinstate open carry within this state.
It was the last one.
Sounds like a good plan! Make it so :)
Which California are you referring to? I believe that it IS exactly the case that California says you cannot carry openly or concealed unless the Sheriff agrees that you have some special reason to carry. In most populous counties in California there basically is no reason good enough to be granted a permit.
Last I heard, there are a total of 52 carry permits issued in my county of over three hundred thousand people.
Yes, what you write was the situation before this case but since the Ninth’s ruling California can’t say one can’t carry both openly and concealed. California can prohibit people from carrying openly OR concealed but not both at the same time. And the individual sheriffs can’t ask for a special reason beyond simple self defense as a condition for a gun permit.
That’s what the opinion from the two says. That the sheriff can’t ask for some special reason for you to concealed carry anymore. He can ask you to fill out “this” form or “that” form or undergo additional background checks but the issue of whether or not the sheriff could demand from you some special reason for you to carry concealed before issuing a permit is decided. And decided in favor of the plaintiff by the Ninth circuit.
That’s not what this dissenting opinion is about. The dissenting opinion is saying that these two (Thomas and Gorsich) believe the SC should hear and decide upon the larger issue of how much every state can regulate the public (either concealed or open carry) bearing of arms. The Ninth refused to decide that part of the case because that’s not what the plaintiff specifically asked, and the SC has refused to decide that issue for the same reason. And that rationale is what Thomas and Gorsich are disagreeing with; they say the question deserves a final ruling, regardless of the fact the plaintiff didn’t specifically ask for that larger question to be asked.
But since the ruling by the Ninth, the sheriff can no longer, as a condition to issuing a permit, require someone give a reason beyond self defense for wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It’s all right there in the dissenting opinion posted earlier, the history of this case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf
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.