Are we screwed now on getting a Carry Case to SCOTUS?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
May 31, 2013, 07:15 PM
.

Well, SCOTUS declined cert in the NY case on whether carrying outside the home is protected. Now it appears the other likely case for that in Illinois won't be getting appealed to SCOTUS since the Illinois Senate and House came to an agreement on carry meeting the 7th Circuits ruling.



So are we not screwed on getting a good carry outside the home case to SCOTUS?
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we screwed now on getting a Carry Case to SCOTUS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bushmaster1313
May 31, 2013, 07:46 PM
The case from Maryland might be the best

Old Fuff
May 31, 2013, 08:45 PM
In the McDonald case the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd. Amendment extended beyond one's residence, but they were also on record as approving "reasonable restrictions," whatever that might be.

So the answer to your question is, "No we are not screwed, but we have to be very careful when selecting a test case.

M2 Carbine
June 2, 2013, 01:19 PM
but they were also on record as approving "reasonable restrictions,"
Frankly I have little hope that the Court will ever rule in our favor on guns.
It's, "shall not be infringed". Not, "reasonable restrictions".

The final straw was when Chief Justice Roberts sold us out and sided with the liberals on obamacare. I don't know how "they" got to him to sell out the American people but "they" did.

Same thing with gun rights.
"reasonable restrictions" means nothing but the anti gun people can pretty much just keep on doing what they have been doing.

Old Fuff
June 2, 2013, 03:40 PM
Same thing with gun rights. "reasonable restrictions" means nothing but the anti gun people can pretty much just keep on doing what they have been doing.

We really won't know until some case law has been established. But at this time things don't look all that dark. Eventually we'll see how recently passed laws in New York and Colorado come out.

And then of course they're is always California... :cuss:

usmarine0352_2005
June 3, 2013, 11:44 PM
.


Maybe Madigan will end up appealing this to SCOTUS.




Is this case or the Maryland case a better case for having a good chance of winning in SCOTUS?




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-madigan-asks-for-30-more-days-on-concealed-carry-law-20130603,0,6700777.story





.
Madigan asks for 30 more days on concealed carry law

By Monique Garcia Clout Street

7:14 p.m. CDT, June 3, 2013

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a request with a federal appeals court asking for an additional 30 days to put in place a law that would allow citizens to carry guns in public.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave the state until June 9 to come up with concealed carry rules when it struck down Illinois’ longtime ban in December. Last week, lawmakers passed a measure setting out who could carry guns and where, but Madigan argues Gov. Pat Quinn should have more time to review the legislation before deciding whether to sign it into law.

Madigan has until June 24 to decide if she will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the appellate court order requiring Illinois to put in place concealed carry. A spokeswoman said she was still weighing the matter.
.
.

rajbcpa
June 4, 2013, 07:51 AM
The liberal dog and judicial activist Scalia sold us out when he used the term "reasonable restrictions"

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that?

Reasonable restrictions in NY means 95% of all handguns are outlawed, so-called assault weapons are outlawed, background checks for ammo is required and on and on and on....

Obama is packing the Supremes with gun-grabbers.

Kiss your 2nd Amendment rights bye bye....

BSA1
June 4, 2013, 09:10 AM
I hope that conceal carry never reaches the Supreme Court.

The right for concealed carry has had hugh success on the state level where lawmakers listened to and responded to the demands of voters. Now you want to endanger these rights by letting a Court that has no accountability to the citizens by a adverse ruling that will undo all of this hard work?

The 10th Amendment got it right. Not all issues should be left to the Federal Government.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

ambidextrous1
June 4, 2013, 09:44 AM
^ ^ ^ ^
What he said! If we cary the issue to the Supreme Court, we convey jurisdiction to them!

General Geoff
June 4, 2013, 04:57 PM
The right for concealed carry has had hugh success on the state level where lawmakers listened to and responded to the demands of voters. Now you want to endanger these rights by letting a Court that has no accountability to the citizens by a adverse ruling that will undo all of this hard work?

Not exactly; taking state and local laws to the USSC on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, means the worst the USSC can do is rule that those local/state laws do not violate the Constitution. This does not "undo" any pro gun laws. All it does is establish that the disputed, antigun law is constitutional.

It would take an act of federal Congress to theoretically 'undo' all that good to which you are referring, and then it would have to climb to the USSC again in order to establish whether the feds have jurisdiction to regulate the carrying of guns outside of federal property (though technically they presume this already, see the revised gun free school zone act).

BSA1
June 4, 2013, 07:21 PM
States that have conceal carry laws already recognize that the right to self defense extends outside the home. The folks in anti carry states need to carry this fight to the ballot box, not to a Court that does not answer to the will of the citizens.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we screwed now on getting a Carry Case to SCOTUS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!