Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Seeking Gun-Carrying Rights

[RugersGR8]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Su...il_job=1738486_06262017&s=al&dkt_nbr=cmpfk9tv
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Seeking Gun-Carrying Rights
Monday, 26 Jun 2017 10:02 AM

..."The high court has turned away gun-rights appeals repeatedly since its last Second Amendment case in 2010, declining to carve out new constitutional protections for firearm owners outside the home.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the high court should have heard the case."...

 

[rawhide]

www.okshooters.com/threads/scotus-refuses-to-take-up-california-2a-restrictions.244987/

 

[OKNewshawk]

www.okshooters.com/threads/scotus-refuses-to-take-up-california-2a-restrictions.244987/

Can't get there from here--it tells me I'm not allowed to view that page.

 

[Dave70968]

It's in the Politics forum; you need to enable access to it in your control panel. Under the "Settings" section on the left, there's a tab entitled "Join User Groups." Enable your access to whichever groups you like.

 

[rc508pir]

How do they get away with not doing their job?

 

[Dave70968]

How do they get away with not doing their job?

Who, and what job? If you mean the justices of the Supreme Court, appeals to that court are entirely discretionary; the Court has the power to decide which cases it wants to hear and which it doesn't (except in certain very rare circumstances in which it has original jurisdiction, which is not the case here).

 

[rc508pir]

Who, and what job? If you mean the justices of the Supreme Court, appeals to that court are entirely discretionary; the Court has the power to decide which cases it wants to hear and which it doesn't (except in certain very rare circumstances in which it has original jurisdiction, which is not the case here).

That being said, I would think that cases pertaining to Constitutional interpretation is right up their alley

 

[Dave70968]

That being said, I would think that cases pertaining to Constitutional interpretation is right up their alley

Agreed, but a significant number of cases come before the Court have constitutional issues; moreover, there are simply too many cases for the court to hear them all. From 2001-2010, the Court averaged about 1674 paid petitions for cert (ignoring in forma pauperis petitions as they tend to be without merit; if you had a real claim, you could probably find a lawyer to take it). Of those, the Court granted cert in an average of about 72/year...a touch over 4% of the time.

The Court tends to focus on issues where there's a circuit split--that is, a difference of ruling between the different circuits on the same issue. So far, I'm not aware of any circuit that has ruled in favor of an interpretation that the 2nd does protect a right to carry outside the home; places where that's likely to happen tend to have friendly carry laws anyway, so such a suit just wouldn't happen, let alone get up to the appellate level.

Yes, I agree, it would be nice to have the Court rule, once and for all, in our favor, but it's not going to happen overnight even under the best of circumstances. The justices aren't derelict in their duty by turning down the case, even if a couple of them dissented from the decision not to grant cert.

Have patience. We didn't lose our rights in a day; we won't get them back so quickly either.

 

[rc508pir]

We didn't lose our rights in a day; .

Exactly, which is why it needs to be resolved.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

"The appeals court ruling “holds only that a state cannot be forced to make that particular choice,” Becerra argued."

"© Copyright 2017 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved."


Interesting that this was an article by Blooming idiot news.