remixer 1,645 Posted June 26, 2017 The justices denied review of Peruta v. California. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJGF 375 Posted June 26, 2017 (edited) 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 June 26, 2017 by NJGF Removed strike through. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted June 26, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted June 26, 2017 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> 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnz 49 Posted June 26, 2017 But they will hear a case about a baker and wedding cakes..... didn't know cake baking was a constitutional amendment 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted June 26, 2017 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! 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted June 26, 2017 I am with you on the disappointment Brian, I was really hoping things would have been different with Gorsuch's appointment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnz 49 Posted June 26, 2017 Good news that gorsuch at least sided with Thomas....... doesn't say much about Alitto and Roberts , and hopefully Kennedy retires soon.... very disappointed 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princetonian58 53 Posted June 26, 2017 One can only hope that Roberts and Alito withheld their votes because of a perceived vote against public carry by Kennedy which would be the death knell for CCW. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remixer 1,645 Posted June 26, 2017 This at the least makes me feel Gorsuch was an excellent choice. Thank you President Trump!. We need 2 more! 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted June 26, 2017 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 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buns of Guns 7 Posted June 26, 2017 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 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted June 27, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,289 Posted June 27, 2017 By letter of the law on paper, I could throw my unloaded AR15 over my shoulder and walk down the street. In reality, I would not last long before I was arrested or shot! I don't want to try it! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted June 27, 2017 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buns of Guns 7 Posted June 27, 2017 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted June 27, 2017 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 :-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites