Supremes decline to rule on right to bear arms (Calif)

Meckmeister

Meckmeister

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
1,808
Location
Hornets Nest
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
On a busy morning of decisions, the court on Monday rejected a challenge out of California regarding the right to carry guns outside their homes, leaving in place a San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

But Thomas, in a dissent joined by Gorsuch, countered that the case raises “important questions” – and warned that Second Amendment disputes aren’t getting the attention they deserve from the Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...urt-decision-to-reject-gun-rights-appeal.html
 
That sheriff, like many in CA, MA and NJ, only grant permits to the politically connected and the donor class wealthy. they typically deny over 99% of applications.
In Cali, <0.03% of the population has 'permission' to carry outside the home. Citizen have to spend upwards of $1000 in CA just to apply.
The interim step needed is the Reciprocity bill because out of state permits are then valid in one's home state regardless state law to the contrary.
 
Chuckman said:
I think this covers concealed carry only, but I am honestly perplexed why they wouldn't hear the case.
Click to expand...
I am too and the only legitimizate (in my humble opinion) reason is because this needs to be addressed by the legislature, rather than the courts.
 
Chuckman said:
I think this covers concealed carry only, but I am honestly perplexed why they wouldn't hear the case.
Click to expand...


The same reason they won't hear most gun cases. They are afraid they will have to rule in favor of liberty. This means that two of the "conservative" justices (Roberts and Alito) declined to agree to the Petition for Certiorari.
 
Perhaps this may be good thou, suppose Ginsburg dies or vacates the court in favor of retirement and we can get a Goursch type 2A supporter, then we may stand a better chance with another conservative judge. Alito and Roberts should have voted for the 2A as well but they don't shock me when they don't.
 
Roberts is no conservative, he was the deciding vote to force Americans to buy insurance. How is that for so called conservatism: the government can force you into buying something and if you don't, you get penalized (Roberts called it tax although Obama's solicitor called it penalty in his argument). Maybe next for Roberts is to force us to buy electric cars because it is better for the environment and if we don't, we have to pay 10% of our income in additional taxes.
Both president Bushes nominated supposedly conservative judges and they end up being anti liberty/anti constitution justices. Bush 41 nominated David Souter who turned to be an uber liberal and Bush 43 nominated Roberts who is closer to Ginsburg than Thomas.
 
Chomping at the bit to redefine the millenia-old definition of marriage but consistently shy away from simply affirming the plain meaning of the protections afforded to our natural and unalienable Rights by the Second Amendment.

Anyone looking to a government court packed with political appointees to find the breadth of their Liberty is going to have a bad time.
 
Saw this on Calguns today. They're still holding out hope for some help from judges.

"They unanimously overturned the Fourth Circuit on the immigration ban. Thomas and Gorsuch will continue to push for Peruta. Things can still swing our way, but we have to wait."

Apparently there is the slightest of chances that the Atty Gen of Cali at the end of business today will decide to roll back some of the regulations against gun owners taking weapons outside their homes.
 
Cpippen said:
Perhaps this may be good thou, suppose Ginsburg dies or vacates the court in favor of retirement and we can get a Goursch type 2A supporter, then we may stand a better chance with another conservative judge. Alito and Roberts should have voted for the 2A as well but they don't shock me when they don't.
Click to expand...
This is where my head is. I'm glad they didn't accept the case because it's not a slam dunk in our favor. Let's get one more Pro-2A judge THEN hear some 2A cases.
 
It might have been strategic, the 4 more reliable(Though Roberts can be blackmailed) are waiting for geezer burger to retire and get a more solid 5th. Than the current squish who swung the Kelo decision.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
fishgutzy said:
It might have been strategic, the 4 more reliable(Though Roberts can be blackmailed) are waiting for geezer burger to retire and get a more solid 5th. Than the current squish who swung the Kelo decision.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I hope you are right.
 
SPM said:
Chomping at the bit to redefine the millenia-old definition of marriage but consistently shy away from simply affirming the plain meaning of the protections afforded to our natural and unalienable Rights by the Second Amendment.

Anyone looking to a government court packed with political appointees to find the breadth of their Liberty is going to have a bad time.
Click to expand...

Hemp-rope-1.png
 
Ginsberg is already "Weekend at Bernie's", and I'm guessing her puppeteers are holding out for the Senate to go Democrat in a couple of years. Rumor is that Kennedy is next up to retire, probably this summer. Because Kennedy is ungrounded to any specific set of principles, you don't know which way he'll go from one case to another, so any 2A case right now is a risk.

Trump has provided a list of about 30 that he got from Heritage Foundation, all life long conservative rock stars, and Trump has said repeatedly his pics will come from that list. So the delay could work for us, or against us. The real tragedy is that we have to play these games with judges that are supposed to be apolitical anyway.

No, wait, the real tragedy is that somehow our entire democracy, the checks and balances, has been tossed and we are now ruled by the whims of five unelected people who have lifetime appointments and cannot be challenged. That's not the Supreme Court, it's the Politburo. I cannot believe this was the design that the founders intended. How did we get here?
 
MostWanted said:
No, wait, the real tragedy is that somehow our entire democracy, the checks and balances, has been tossed and we are now ruled by the whims of five unelected people who have lifetime appointments and cannot be challenged. That's not the Supreme Court, it's the Politburo. I cannot believe this was the design that the founders intended. How did we get here?
Click to expand...

We are a Republic, not a democracy. A democracy is nothing more than rule by millions of petty tyrants, and was fully rejected by the Founders as a form of government.

The way our system operates now - as a democracy - is exactly how it's meant to - mob rule.

And it's terribly easy to find 50.1% of the population willing to violate the Rights of the other 49.9% for any number of things. It's all in how you ask the question.
 
Last edited:
@MostWanted how did we get here? I suspect "judicial review" is part of the problem in that the court granted themselves powers they didn't recall have.

You're right though, they're a politburo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
cubrock said:
Thomas' dissent is on page 30. It is worth a few minutes to read.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf
Click to expand...
Money quote...

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it….
Click to expand...
 
Ginsburg was arrogant enough to stay from 2008-2016 because she wanted Clinton to name her replacement rather than Obama.

Statistically, she now has a really good chance that her last thought will be 'Trump picks my replacement.' :p
 
Last edited:
cubrock said:
The same reason they won't hear most gun cases. They are afraid they will have to rule in favor of liberty. This means that two of the "conservative" justices (Roberts and Alito) declined to agree to the Petition for Certiorari.
Click to expand...

It takes four votes to hear a case but five votes for a majority. It would be self-defeating for pro-2A judges to take cases without the fifth vote needed for a winning ruling.
 
gc70 said:
It takes four votes to hear a case but five votes for a majority. It would be self-defeating for pro-2A judges to take cases without the fifth vote needed for a winning ruling.
Click to expand...


I admit to being quite jaded in this, though it is possible that is what happened. For 80 years, the SC has weaseled around gun control issues very carefully, both in cases they have heard, but especially in cases they have refused to hear. It will take some consistent action to the contrary for me to give much benefit of the doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
cubrock said:
I admit to being quite jaded in this, though it is possible that is what happened. For 80 years, the SC has weaseled around gun control issues very carefully, both in cases they have heard, but especially in cases they have refused to hear. It will take some consistent action to the contrary for me to give much benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly cynical about government and the courts. In this case, I doubt Peruta would have gone to conference 12 times if either side had a clear fifth vote. If the liberals had 5 sure votes, they would have immediately taken the case to confine the 2nd Amendment to inside the home.

I tend to believe what has been written about Kennedy barely tilting in favor of Heller and only after Scalia wrote a lot of weird and awkward stuff into the ruling to get Kennedy's vote. With Kennedy on the fence, neither side seems willing to bet which way he will go.
 
gc70 said:
I'm fairly cynical about government and the courts. In this case, I doubt Peruta would have gone to conference 12 times if either side had a clear fifth vote. If the liberals had 5 sure votes, they would have immediately taken the case to confine the 2nd Amendment to inside the home.

I tend to believe what has been written about Kennedy barely tilting in favor of Heller and only after Scalia wrote a lot of weird and awkward stuff into the ruling to get Kennedy's vote. With Kennedy on the fence, neither side seems willing to bet which way he will go.
Click to expand...


That makes sense, especially when you bring up some of the stuff that surprised us coming from Scalia in Heller.
 
Small steps and patience, good thing come to those who wait.

Pres. Trump will nominate two more candidates for SCTOUS,
and the left can not stop him.:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom