Jump to content
John Boy

Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case. Again...

Recommended Posts

A part of the dissent by Thomas and joined by Gorsuch:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees
that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm's 

 shall
not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that
guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for
self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one
of national importance or that the courts of appeals have
already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari. 

Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that
the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public
carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this
important question definitively. Twenty-six States have
asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for
Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have
fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals
and three state courts of last resort have decided
cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public
carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below)
have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the
issue. 

Hence, I do
not see much value in waiting for additional courts to
weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at
stake

The Court
has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in
over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard
argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the
question presented turned on the meaning of the First
Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable,
especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence
is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared
to the First and Fourth Amendments. 

The Constitution does not rank certain
rights above others, and I do not think this Court should
impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred
rights. 

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects
a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second
Amendment as a disfavored right

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. I respectfully
dissent. 

Edited by NJGF
Removed strike through.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote against hearing the case was 7-2 with Thomas writing a short dissent with which Gorsuch concurred.  From a quick read, it seems that some members of the Court want more decisions by the Courts of Appeals before deciding the case.  It is troubling that Peruta was not supported by the Chief or Alito.  That suggests that the votes are not there to uphold the right to public carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support SCOTUS decision to deny review of Peruta. The court was busy reviewing / rule on important & significant cases such as

* Weaver vs. MA where a conviction is challenged because the court space was too small to accommodate large number of public

* Matal vs Tam where a patent dispute is escalated into a "First Amendment Issue". 

How can anyone fault SCOTUS for not taking up 2A case when all these other complex, very important, ground breaking, history changing cases are waiting in line. 

 

<end-of-sarcasm>:slap:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very disappointed that, at least, Alito did not join the dissent with Thomas and Gorsuch.

I've learned not to expect ANYTHING from the Chief except treachery.

And for the rest of them, may they rot in Hell, very soon I hope.

Show them the way Ruthie!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news that gorsuch at least sided with Thomas....... doesn't say much about Alitto and Roberts , and hopefully Kennedy retires soon.... very disappointed 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the case to follow now, it is a pure open carry issue, unlike  Perruta.  It is pending oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

Nichols v. Brown

Appeal No.: 14-55873

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Peruta didn't have much chance. Alan Gura talked about this in my GF's civil rights class the day I crashed it. There's a reason he stayed away from it.

Essentially, Peruta contested denial of his CCW permit by claiming open carry is impossible. A pure open carry case like Nichols has a much better chance, and would do immediate good for states like Florida. It would also compel California legislators to allow concealed carry to shield fragile eyes from legally holstered handguns.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Buns of Guns said:

Honestly Peruta didn't have much chance. Alan Gura talked about this in my GF's civil rights class the day I crashed it. There's a reason he stayed away from it.

Essentially, Peruta contested denial of his CCW permit by claiming open carry is impossible. A pure open carry case like Nichols has a much better chance, and would do immediate good for states like Florida. It would also compel California legislators to allow concealed carry to shield fragile eyes from legally holstered handguns.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
 

It could have gone either way. The baby-step theory is that we get the court to rule on cases that advance towards the 2A. Its an open secret that SCOTUS is very political and biased. It is also an open secret most of them believe an unrestricted 2A may challenge establishment. Open Carry is (sorta) a dramatic step that even most conservative part of court will be unwilling to rule in favor of. 

The other theory is, ask them for something far fetched, and they might settle for something smaller. I am not sure this works with SCOTUS as they always rule on specific situation at question. 

NJ does not prohibit open carry (of unloaded long guns with FPID). What good does it do in our every day lives ?  A separate topic, but if a NJ case ever comes to SCOTUS, I wouldn't be surprised if NJ argues that it does not infringe on 2A. If anything, it will argue that for mere $5 and background check, anyone can open carry in NJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

It could have gone either way. The baby-step theory is that we get the court to rule on cases that advance towards the 2A. Its an open secret that SCOTUS is very political and biased. It is also an open secret most of them believe an unrestricted 2A may challenge establishment. Open Carry is (sorta) a dramatic step that even most conservative part of court will be unwilling to rule in favor of. 

The other theory is, ask them for something far fetched, and they might settle for something smaller. I am not sure this works with SCOTUS as they always rule on specific situation at question. 

NJ does not prohibit open carry (of unloaded long guns with FPID). What good does it do in our every day lives ?  A separate topic, but if a NJ case ever comes to SCOTUS, I wouldn't be surprised if NJ argues that it does not infringe on 2A. If anything, it will argue that for mere $5 and background check, anyone can open carry in NJ. 

Empty is not bearing arms. It's teh equivalent of a sword sheath  sans da sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could have gone either way. The baby-step theory is that we get the court to rule on cases that advance towards the 2A. Its an open secret that SCOTUS is very political and biased. It is also an open secret most of them believe an unrestricted 2A may challenge establishment. Open Carry is (sorta) a dramatic step that even most conservative part of court will be unwilling to rule in favor of. 


I disagree entirely. There is way more case law supporting open carry as 2A component than concealed carry. Actually (and unfortunately) it looks like courts dating far back OK'd CC bans as being constitutional. Open carry has a much better chance in any federal court, regardless of its makeup.

IMO Peruta would not have been the baby step we were looking for. It would have been a stretch, that quite frankly, did not have a solid foundation.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Buns of Guns said:

 


I disagree entirely. There is way more case law supporting open carry as 2A component than concealed carry. Actually (and unfortunately) it looks like courts dating far back OK'd CC bans as being constitutional. Open carry has a much better chance in any federal court, regardless of its makeup.

IMO Peruta would not have been the baby step we were looking for. It would have been a stretch, that quite frankly, did not have a solid foundation.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
 

 

In a similar twist, courts did rule in favor of ban on anything not commonly used in war at the time. But then did 180 and ban on autos and other real weapons of war is ok. Go figure. 

Anyways, happy to be wrong. Drinks on me for anyone who would show up, should SCOTUS rule in favor of Open Carry :-). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...