Supreme Court Refuses to Take up Issue of Gun Rights Outside Home

[Crabtownboy]

Should people have to show good cause in order to carry a firearm?

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether the Constitution provides a right to carry a handgun in public, passing up a major issue about firearm owners' rights simmering nationwide.

The court said it would not examine a California law that requires showing "good cause" in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. As a practical matter, the law makes it difficult for most people to get a permit in the state's urban areas.

Supreme Court refused Monday to take up the issue of gun rights outside the home

 

[Deacon]

Supreme Court is deferring to States rights

...and the possibility that Congress will eventually open a door for the Court to rule
...after passing a gun rights reciprocity law.
​

Rob

 

[777]

yep, and this isn't the first time this SC had backed from ruling at all on gun rights - looks like Gorsuch is big 2A, btw:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/i...2615432818&curindex=1&slreturn=20170526155816

the title of this thread is wrong - the thing SCOTUS refused to review was about concealed carry in CA (can be regulated), not about the right to bear arms outside of the home.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What would be a good enough cause ?

 

[Dave]

As the amendment states the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, this is a clear violation of the 2A and should have been reviewed and overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[Reynolds]

As the amendment states the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, this is a clear violation of the 2A and should have been reviewed and overturned by SCOTUS.

Well, the SCOTUS is as worthless as mammories on a boat hog; to clean up one of my grandfathers favorite sayings.

 

[Adonia]

Should people have to show good cause in order to carry a firearm?

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether the Constitution provides a right to carry a handgun in public, passing up a major issue about firearm owners' rights simmering nationwide.

The court said it would not examine a California law that requires showing "good cause" in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. As a practical matter, the law makes it difficult for most people to get a permit in the state's urban areas.

Supreme Court refused Monday to take up the issue of gun rights outside the home

\Well then, one needs to move to a state that has a "shall issue" requirement in their laws, or get their state representatives to change the laws in their particular state. Individual officials should not be deciding things such as this.

 

[TCassidy]

yep, and this isn't the first time this SC had backed from ruling at all on gun rights - looks like Gorsuch is big 2A, btw:

There is no greater advocate of the 2nd amendment than me. I believe it is absolute.

However, Peruta vs. the San Diego County Sheriff is a bad 9th Circuit Ruling that, had the SCOTUS overturned it, would set a bad and confusing precedent. Peruta was referred to as a "part-time" citizen of California, living in a motor home parked in his sister's driveway. The problem is that all he was denied was a Concealed Carry license (they are not all that hard to get in San Diego County, I had one for several years). The 9th Circuit correctly (according to case law) ruled that concealed carry was not a right but a privilege. So far, so good. But the problem arises in that California also forbids open carry. And that, along with "may issue" CCW results in an infringement on the 2nd amendment provided the applicant, Peruta, had a legitimate claim to being a California resident (California does not issue non-resident CCWs.) Unfortunately, he didn't. And over turning the 9th Circuit's decision could be interpreted as forcing non-resident CCWs being issued by California.

I think the SCOTUS made a wise decision to not hear this can of worms and wait for a case that is black letter law.

 

[church mouse guy]

Shouldn't a permit to carry a gun be like a drivers license--good in all states?

 

[TCassidy]

Shouldn't a permit to carry a gun be like a drivers license--good in all states?

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is why your drivers license is good in all 50 states. This is why your marriage certificate is good in all 50 states.
It is unconstitutional, in my not entirely humble opinion, for a License to Carry to not be valid in all 50 states.

Of course, that opinion flies in the face of the fact that a constitutional right cannot be licensed, as the 2nd amendment forbids such licenses from being issued (shall not be infringed). Every law abiding citizen of the United States has the right to carry any firearm of his choice in any manner he chooses.

 

[Adonia]

There is no greater advocate of the 2nd amendment than me. I believe it is absolute.

However, Peruta vs. the San Diego County Sheriff is a bad 9th Circuit Ruling that, had the SCOTUS overturned it, would set a bad and confusing precedent. Peruta was referred to as a "part-time" citizen of California, living in a motor home parked in his sister's driveway. The problem is that all he was denied was a Concealed Carry license (they are not all that hard to get in San Diego County, I had one for several years). The 9th Circuit correctly (according to case law) ruled that concealed carry was not a right but a privilege. So far, so good. But the problem arises in that California also forbids open carry. And that, along with "may issue" CCW results in an infringement on the 2nd amendment provided the applicant, Peruta, had a legitimate claim to being a California resident (California does not issue non-resident CCWs.) Unfortunately, he didn't. And over turning the 9th Circuit's decision could be interpreted as forcing non-resident CCWs being issued by California.

I think the SCOTUS made a wise decision to not hear this can of worms and wait for a case that is black letter law.

And California's "open carry" was useless. I mean really, a pistol without ammo is just a hunk of metal shaped like a gun.