Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment cases challenging lifetime gun ownership ban

The Supreme Court punts more than the ‘39 Texas Tech Red Raiders/Centenary Gentlemen game.

The more fascinating aspect of the recent behavior of the USSC is their *rulings* by absenting themselves - that they are performing of late.

Failing to take up a case is of course, supporting a previous ruling regardless the esoteric, double-speak reasoning that they often use.

It's like the tools in Congress thinking they can dodge accountability by being absent or registering a non-vote. They are still identified by their context.

Todd.

A lot of folks were hanging their hopes on a “conservative” court. With what’s going on in this country and the media’s role in inciting more violence, is any one surprised the court punted on a gun issue. The court will not help loosen gun rights with the civil disturbance on the rise. Try to ban firearms across the board and I believe that’s a bridge to far. We need Frank in on this.

lilguy said:

We need Frank in on this.

Click to expand...

Why? It’s speculation as to why they punted. Could be public opinion since we keep having shootings. Could be because of the threat to pack the court. Could be because the SCOTUS is actually disinterested in the cases and believes the lower court rulings should stand. I just wish they were required to go on record and write an explanation why they pass certain cases, not just regarding the 2A.

They're doing what they do best. Bowing out on important cases.
My late father said if you change your opinion based out of fear. You have no business being a judge. I agree with him.

Lots of 2A cases in the pipeline. Maybe they are waiting on the right case. I dunno, just hopeful.

Right now they may just trying to keep a low profile to avoid stirring up support for the court packing push. But I agree with post 5 that they should provide an explanation as to why they pass on accepting a case.

Bfh_auto said:

They're doing what they do best. Bowing out on important cases.
My late father said if you change your opinion based out of fear. You have no business being a judge. I agree with him.

Click to expand...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/11891633/

Me. Too.

Terry, 230RN

Keep in mind that for every case they take, the Supreme Court passes on 99 others.

Judges are judges. Not politicians.
I heard a doctor say “When politics and medicine come together, politics always wins, which is unfortunate.”
That also appears to be the case with justice in this country today.

natman said:

Keep in mind that for every case they take, the Supreme Court passes on 99 others.

Click to expand...

We've heard that for a long,. long time now. As the threat to gun rights becomes more to fore, it's getting old. However, on the antigun side, they despair that they can't get anything through the Senate, although they see some positive signs for HBCs, not so much for AWBs.

ev780 said:

Lots of 2A cases in the pipeline. Maybe they are waiting on the right case. I dunno, just hopeful.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping you're right

From single-issue viewpoint, every case passed on relating to that single issue looks personal, venal, and crass. And are usually assigned vitriol appropriate to such notions.

However, the metrics are absolute. SCOTUS is presented anywhere from 3200-3500 case per year, and can only actually hear 700-800 cases at maximum. (For the 40 week SCOTUS 'year' that 20 cases per week--four per day.)

So, many "issues" do not get considered. Issues critical to those invested in them as single-issue controversies.
And, many minor cases get brought to SCOTUS, along with piles of pre-trial motions arguing procedure.

In this specific case, life-time bans on becoming a Prohibited Person is really an issue of the difference between USC and CFR and funding of agencies. To wit, a problem created y the Legislative and Executive ranches between themselves. 18 USC 922 was cooked up by Congress, and left to be administered by the Executive Branch (and by defunding portions of the law they themselves created). That's not really Constitutional--that's procedural.

Yes, there's an excellent argument regarding permanent disenfranchisement of free citizens being abhorrent to Liberty, but none of the cases brought that as an argument.

Just because a case is brought to SCOTUS does not mean it's properly framed as a constitutional issue--the NYC lawsuit being an excellent example.

We will see if an AWB or limitations on carry in some states are a constitutional issue. I see that we may see the NYC moot case as peripheral as this case might be. However, they ditched more direct 'constitutional' cases due to Roberts being an anti. What will happen with the new more focuses cases is an unknown and whether they get off their glacial pace is maddening. But Judge Amy had time for a book deal.

Clarence is getting into drop dead any day age range - Democrats worry about Breyer. We didn't think Scalia would just drop dead - surprise.