WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal

RitcheyRch

Currently Boat-Less
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
65,159
Reaction score
82,898
:grumble:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...urt-decision-to-reject-gun-rights-appeal.html

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a scathing dissent Monday to a Supreme Court decision turning away yet another gun rights case.

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.

“The Court’s decision … reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” they wrote.

The case in question involved a San Diego man who said state and county policies requiring "good cause" -- a specific reason or justifiable need to legally carry a concealed weapon -- were too restrictive. A federal appeals court had ruled for the state, and now those restrictions will stay in place.

But Thomas and Gorsuch – the court’s newest member – called the appeals court’s decision to limit its review only to the “good cause” provision “indefensible.”

“The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years,” they wrote. “… 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 justices concluded by warning the court is in danger of acting dismissive toward the right to bear arms:

“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.”

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.

The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes.

The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration's appeal.
 

RitcheyRch

Currently Boat-Less
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
65,159
Reaction score
82,898
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...d-amendment-case-look-at-california-law.html?


The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits.

After postponing the order multiple times, the nation’s highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a “good cause” requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

At issue in this case is concealed carry and whether a county can define “good cause” to carry a weapon outside of one’s home as strictly as some California counties — specifically San Diego — do.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners reportedly attempted to obtain concealed carry permits in San Diego County, Calif. However, the sheriff’s department — which handles permit requests — requires a specific “good cause” to obtain the permits, Fox News previously reported.

That “good cause” must be more specific than just a general concern for wellbeing; a person must list a precise fear, such as domestic violence or carrying a large amount of money.

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.

The nation’s highest court hasn’t always been so willing to take up Second Amendment cases, Law Newz reported earlier this month. And this particular case has been rescheduled multiple times.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

With the Supreme Court declining to review the case, the California law will remain in place.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
This is a great statement......:thumbsup:thumbsup
?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.?
 

Skinny Tire AH

This ain't all folks! Skater368
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
23,695
I've often pondered the SCOTUS decisions and just how they have come to pass and or deny many of the things they do.

For some reason, they continue to parse the verbiage, intent and meaning of specifically enumerated constitutional rights, (the 2A). Yet, they somehow find far reaching definitions that aren't there. A woman's right to decide and make her own health decisions, has somehow evolved into abortion rights? Show me where that is? Yet the 2A meaning is something other than exactly what it says.

Our courts have become a third branch of legislation. Just today, they added a carve out for Trumps travel ban. I really don't think its their job to add or subtract from an EO. It either is...or it isn't. Yes or no. Period.
 

RitcheyRch

Currently Boat-Less
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
65,159
Reaction score
82,898
Completely agree and is mind boggling.


I've often pondered the SCOTUS decisions and just how they have come to pass and or deny many of the things they do.

For some reason, they continue to parse the verbiage, intent and meaning of specifically enumerated constitutional rights, (the 2A). Yet, they somehow find far reaching definitions that aren't there. A woman's right to decide and make her own health decisions, has somehow evolved into abortion rights? Show me where that is? Yet the 2A meaning is something other than exactly what it says.

Our courts have become a third branch of legislation. Just today, they added a carve out for Trumps travel ban. I really don't think its their job to add or subtract from an EO. It either is...or it isn't. Yes or no. Period.
 

Stainless

Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
23,671
Reaction score
9,039
I think they realized it was in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit and realized it would get overturned. [emoji12]
 
Top