Supreme Court declines to take up two Second Amendment cases

CNN ^ | 6-26-17 | de Vogue

[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.

[FourtySeven]

See page two of the document I linked, and read from where it starts, “In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. ...”

742 F. 3D 1144 was the original case brought and decided for the sheriff. If you read further you’ll see that the Ninth reversed this ruling and that’s what currently stands since the court won’t hear this particular case (which is good) but also the larger issue of how much a state can regulate the public bearing of arms remains unanswered as well. Which is what Gorsich and Thomas are complaining about here.

[Redbob]

"There ks nothing in the constitution which puts the requirement to ‘show a need’ before one is allowed the right to carry"

Nor is there anything in the Bill of Rights requiring one to show a need for the exercise of *any* Constitutional right!

Imagine the outcry if someone who wanted to publish a newspaper or blog were required to "show a need!"

[William Tell]

I suggest that you re-read the dissent. Just following the part you quoted is the following: "The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. "

The favorable ruling by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was in effect for about two weeks until the Ninth Circuit accepted a petition for re-hearing from the State of California. At that time my Sheriff, and most others in California, resumed their policy of demanding "good cause" beyond just self-defense.

It's my understanding that the sheriff of San Diego County, who did not appeal the favorable ruling, is presently NOT issuing permits for self-defense and I doubt that Peruta has been granted a permit.

[Big Red Badger]

Navy Town ...
With a libtard Sheriff!

[Bob434]

[[Imagine the outcry if someone who wanted to publish a newspaper or blog were required to “show a need!” ]]

Excellent point- and make no mistake- that IS coming here to the US soon if liberals run this country- in canada now it’s against the law for people to have websites that denounce abortion from what i understand- the claim being that such blogs ‘peddle misinformation’ or some such nonsense

[Bob434]

[[Sorry, but you lost the debate right there.

There is NO need for any ‘allowance’ (IE: request permission) to utilize one’s Rights.]]

You missed my point- the state thinks they have a right to either allow or not allow based on whatever the hell they decide is ‘appropriate’ at the time- in htis case they either allow or not allow based on ‘need’- the whoel point of my statement is that the state is trampling on our inalienable RIGHT to own guns- so no- i do not ‘lose the argument’ lol

[FourtySeven]

Yes you are correct I was mistaken thanks for the correction. I read it 3 times before posting but for some reason I read what you quoted incorrectly. Thanks again for the correction. (I was starting to think maybe the Ninth Circuit might have some sense haha)

[i_robot73]

>
You missed my point- the state thinks they have a right to either allow or not allow based on whatever the hell they decide is ‘appropriate’ at the time- in htis case they either allow or not allow based on ‘need’- the whoel point of my statement is that the state is trampling on our inalienable RIGHT to own guns
>

ANY qualifier is an infringement upon our Rights, whether by ‘appropriate’ or ‘need’. Arguing one over the over is a difference w/o distinction, especially when the English is clear, “shall *NOT* be infringed.”

[Bob434]

[[ANY qualifier is an infringement upon our Rights,]]

Exactly that is the point i made- and the point you apparently didn’t see being made- the state thinks they have the right to allow or disallow based on ‘need’ - they do NOT have that right- I thought my point was clear enough on that