Do we need to get a Carry case to SCOTUS ASAP?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Recently it appears that SCOTUS has decisioned against the 2nd Amendment in gun related cases. Yesterday in Abramski v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that one legal gun owner can't buy a gun for another legal gun owner.

With the makeup of the current court I think we could win a Carry case outside the home. But if that makeup changes, we could end up on the losing end.



So, do you think it is critical to get a carry case to SCOTUS ASAP or is it better to wait?

 

[pendennis]

There's really nothing that can be done to get a case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cases on point have to work their way through state, and then, Federal Courts. If a case were decided against "Carry outside the home", it would be several years before it could work its way through the U.S. Courts of Appeal (panels and/or full court). The U.S. Supreme Court would then have to agree to hear the case. Very few cases are expedited through the courts systems owing to the huge number of cases at every level.

As it is, the U.S. Supreme Court hears an extremely small number of appeals, and most of those are decided on narrow legal issues. They seldom issue sweeping opinions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Be careful what you wish for. The way things have been going, the Supreme Court -- if it agrees to take the case at all -- is more likely than not to rule against gun owners.

 

[BSA1]

Not no

But HECK NO!!!

We have and are having great success on the State level with passage of concealed carry. All 50 States have laws allowing c.c.

Why risk undoing all of those years of hard work on a issue we are winning?

 

[Hypnogator]

SCOTUS ruled that one legal gun owner can't buy a gun for another legal gun owner.

No, they ruled that you can't lie on a Federal form on which you sign an affirmation of truth under penalty of perjury. It has, really, nothing to do with guns.

 

[MagnunJoe]

In the upcoming 8 years of Hillary's presidency, she will appoint 3 new supreme court judges who think just like her. How u like them apples?

 

[kwguy]

^^^

We better get to the polls this fall then to keep the congress in our favor.

 

[Tirod]

Goes to those who advocate having a new Constitutional congress to reinforce our rights - there is no guarantee that it won't be usurped and we actually lose the 2A entirely.

Why rush to send cases to the Supreme Court if they are on a trend deciding against the 2A?

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Rushing into making or interpreting law is exactly how we got the AWB, SAFE act, etc. There is NO advantage, just a track record of restriction and abuse of our rights. We enjoy our rights by exercising them responsibly, not working to let others challenge us.

I will add - it's not the local or Federal lawmakers who restrict your right to carry or where you shoot as much as your employer and their insurance company. What we see in the law largely reflects their influence. If someone is focused on the government as the solution - or oppressor - what is lacking is that WE are the government.

We need to have a better grasp overall of not doing things on the spur of the moment and reflecting on the unintended consequences of a rash decision.

 

[CWL]

I disagree. The SCOTUS has been ruling favorably towards 2nd Amendment rights, with landmark decisions on RTKBA for everyone, not just a patchwork of laws issued by individual States & municipalities.

In DC v. Heller, they ruled that Federal Areas may not restrict individuals from owning & accessing firearms for legal purposes such as self-defense.

Following-up with McDonald v. City of Chicago, the SCOTUS affirmed their earlier decision of the RTKBA to all States as well.

What the SCOTUS has been careful to do, is skirt around direct challenges on State & local carry laws.

Organizations and individuals, including the NRA are making efforts to bring challenges before the SCOTUS to literally force them to make a ruling. The expectations are that the the SCOTUS will be forced to define & enforce their earlier rulings which were pro-RTKBA.

California is actually at the forefront of these efforts to bring legal challenges before State, Appellate and the SCOTUS. It will take time & money, but the momentum is actually pro-RKTBA.

 

[Dain Bramage]

It has, really, nothing to do with guns.

Truth.

As our legal scholar, Mr. Frank Ettin, has previously pointed out, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in Abramski v. U.S. used the 2nd Amendment in their arguments.

 

[ljnowell]

Recently it appears that SCOTUS has decisioned against the 2nd Amendment in gun related cases. Yesterday in Abramski v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that one legal gun owner can't buy a gun for another legal gun owner.



[/B]With the makeup of the current court I think we could win a Carry case outside the home. [/B]But if that makeup changes, we could end up on the losing end.







So, do you think it is critical to get a carry case to SCOTUS ASAP or is it better to wait?

We have already achieved that. My home state of IL was the test bed for it. In Heller the majority opinion said that it was a fundamental right to "keep and carry a handgun in case of confrontation."

We used that opinion to successfully argue the constitutionality of our laws preventing concealed carry, and WON. We would not have concealed carry if it weren't for the courts agreeing that's what Hellers opinion said.

 

[stonecutter2]

We have already achieved that. My home state of IL was the test bed for it. In Heller the majority opinion said that it was a fundamental right to "keep and carry a handgun in case of confrontation."

We used that opinion to successfully argue the constitutionality of our laws preventing concealed carry, and WON. We would not have concealed carry if it weren't for the courts agreeing that's what Hellers opinion said.

Yeah, no doubt - this already happened not long ago.

I'm surprised that so many here didn't pay as much attention to what happened in IL.

Not a great victory, but a victory nonetheless. We got afforded a liberty that has long been denied to us.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No, they ruled that you can't lie on a Federal form on which you sign an affirmation of truth under penalty of perjury. It has, really, nothing to do with guns.

Except if you read the minority opinion (the districts were also split down the middle too) the majority used a different theory of who is the purchaser than other (non-gun) areas of law and a different standard of materiality than other (non-gun) areas of law. This kind of makes it a gun case.

Also claimed power to "fix" broken laws is dangerous. As the dissent points out what may be "broken" to one man may very well have been the result of a compromise.

Mike

 

[MagnunJoe]

^^^

We better get to the polls this fall then to keep the congress in our favor.

That won't change the fact that Hillary will appoint 3 Supreme Court judges in the 8 years if her regime.

 

[Al Thompson]

Already have a thread on the ruling running in Legal.