Judges Gorsuch and Thomas give hope on future SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Cases

[Aim1]

Now I think we have a fairly good idea on how Justice Gorsuch would rule.


From the article:


This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion,” As we explained in Heller, to bear arms means to wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.

“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” Justice Thomas reasoned. “The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights.”

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch conclude:

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….




http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ourt-should-take-more-second-amendment-cases/

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch: Supreme Court Should Take More Second Amendment Cases


by KEN KLUKOWSKI26 Jun 2017Washington, DC72

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Gun owners were disappointed Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take perhaps the highest-profile Second Amendment case in the country right now:Peruta v. California.

 

[ilbob]

I don't think anyone knows why this case was not taken on by the court other than just pure fear at what the end result could be as far as restructuring all kinds of laws at both the federal and state level. It could be very disruptive. maybe the majority of the justices just did not want to touch it for now, seeing as how volatile things are these days.

 

[hdwhit]

I think Ilbob makes a good point. In the Legal forum, Frank Ettin has said that 2A jurisprudence is still developing when compared with First Amendment law. The Supreme Court knows it will have ample opportunity in the future to fine tune the guidance it gives so its better to wait for the right case to arrive.

 

[readyeddy]

It would appear that they came up 2 votes short to grant cert, and 3 votes short of overturning the 9th Cir. Not a good sign.

 

[Aim1]

I think Ilbob makes a good point. In the Legal forum, Frank Ettin has said that 2A jurisprudence is still developing when compared with First Amendment law. The Supreme Court knows it will have ample opportunity in the future to fine tune the guidance it gives so its better to wait for the right case to arrive.

Any example of what cases might be the right ones?

 

[jdc1244]

I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right...

Pity Thomas isn’t consistent in his opposition to the states seeking to violate citizens’ other rights and protected liberties.

...maybe the majority of the justices just did not want to touch it for now, seeing as how volatile things are these days.

That and an absence of a split between two or more of the appellate courts.

 

[CoalTrain49]

This is a very good example of the SC not giving a hoot about your RKBA. They're still stuck in the state rights mode just like they were with SSM. I equate the two here based on nothing more than a changing trend in states laws and how people view a persons rights.

The SSM thing started in the early 70's and was fought in the courts for 40 years. It wasn't until 2015 that the SC finally addressed the issue as it related to a states right to regulate it. The reason they finally addressed it was that SSM had become legal in most states. One SC justice even said that was the reason for her decision. Imagine that. Thomas and Gorsuch are just ahead of the curve on RKBA. A few of the other SC justices might be swayed with a good argument but mostly they're going to go with how the majority of states regulate RKBA, the same as they did with SSM.

I'm not sure how long this RKBA issue has been kicked around in the higher courts. I would guess maybe 10 years. That means that we probably have another 20-30 years to go before the SC will have an enlightened moment and rule that states no longer can deny your RKBA.

I'm going to be dead in 30 years. In 20 years I probably won't be carrying a gun if I'm still around. It seems to me a more practical approach to this would be to demand your RKBA in the state where you live. Also demand that any money you fork over to any organization be used at the state level. The AG crowd already knows this is the back door to more gun control and have been spending millions to influence state elections and initiatives.

We have to win our RKBA at the state level before there will be any change thru the SC. Any hope that the SC is going to rule against states over RKBA is like betting against a team with a 5 to1 odds advantage. Who in their right mind would place a bet like that?

 

[CoalTrain49]

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 agree with that. The problem is influence. That's great that a SC justice feels that way but how does the average voter influence the whole supreme court. They already know the law so the only thing left is how do the people feel about that law. The people get to have a say in this. That gets back to how are the people regulating themselves thru state representatives. That would be a good indication for me and it isn't wasted on the SC. If people won't stand up for their rights at the state level why would anyone expect the SC to think they are serious in that endeavor.

 

[RPZ]

This is a very good example of the SC not giving a hoot about your RKBA. They're still stuck in the state rights mode just like they were with SSM. I equate the two here based on nothing more than a changing trend in states laws and how people view a persons rights.

The SSM thing started in the early 70's and was fought in the courts for 40 years. It wasn't until 2015 that the SC finally addressed the issue as it related to a states right to regulate it. The reason they finally addressed it was that SSM had become legal in most states. One SC justice even said that was the reason for her decision. Imagine that. Thomas and Gorsuch are just ahead of the curve on RKBA. A few of the other SC justices might be swayed with a good argument but mostly they're going to go with how the majority of states regulate RKBA, the same as they did with SSM.

I'm not sure how long this RKBA issue has been kicked around in the higher courts. I would guess maybe 10 years. That means that we probably have another 20-30 years to go before the SC will have an enlightened moment and rule that states no longer can deny your RKBA.

I'm going to be dead in 30 years. In 20 years I probably won't be carrying a gun if I'm still around. It seems to me a more practical approach to this would be to demand your RKBA in the state where you live. Also demand that any money you fork over to any organization be used at the state level. The AG crowd already knows this is the back door to more gun control and have been spending millions to influence state elections and initiatives.

We have to win our RKBA at the state level before there will be any change thru the SC. Any hope that the SC is going to rule against states over RKBA is like betting against a team with a 5 to1 odds advantage. Who in their right mind would place a bet like that?

States rights are very important. However, surely the 2nd Amendment usage of the words "the people", was not intended to be only people on Federal land, Federal forts, ports, U.S. Territories etc. The same could be said for the whole Bill of Rights.

 

[danez71]

... If people won't stand up for their rights at the state level why would anyone expect the SC to think they are serious in that endeavor.

People are standing up for their Rights... but the majority in some states are anti 2A.

Ultimately, it seems to fit in SCOTUS's role.

 

[CoalTrain49]

States rights are very important. However, surely the 2nd Amendment usage of the words "the people", was not intended to be only people on Federal land, Federal forts, ports, U.S. Territories etc. The same could be said for the whole Bill of Rights.

As far as I'm concerned the BOR is there to restrict the rights of the federal gov't, nothing more. I'm finished arguing the language in the BOR. I've seen hundreds of pages of arguments on that and they all end with the reality of a SC interpretation. After all, they're the ones who get to decide, are they not? How does an individuals interpretation of the BOR matter in the general scheme of things? Not much unless you want to spend a good part of your life and a truck load of money in court.

The whole idea of a republic was to let ''the people" decide. Instead of railing about how the BOR should protect your rights, why not just take those issues up with your state representatives. My US senators and my US congressman are all Democrats so no joy there. I don't waste any effort on them. My state representative and my state senator are republicans and are responsive to my input. I have a pretty fair chance of getting things changed at the state level.

I can't ever recall anyone asking me to vote on a supreme court justice appointment.

 

[CoalTrain49]

People are standing up for their Rights... but the majority in some states are anti 2A.

Ultimately, it seems to fit in SCOTUS's role.

The majority in some states were anti SSM also but when the issue finally made it to the SC it didn't matter. My point is there has to be a lot of support for RKBA at the state level (majority of the states) before the SC will ever hear a case. I personally think that the SC had no business ruling on SSM but they did anyway. Many states at the time still had anti SSM laws but were forced comply to the SC ruling.

The issue of states rights in the matter of SSM was decided. The states don't have a right anymore to make that call. RKBA could be the law of the land and gained in the same way.

 

[RPZ]

I can't ever recall anyone asking me to vote on a supreme court justice appointment.

You do that when you vote for the POTUS and Senate

 

[CoalTrain49]

You do that when you vote for the POTUS and Senate

What happens when that goes south like it did in 2008? Wait another eight years and hope you get favorable appointments because that's what just happened. Obama appointed 329 federal judges including 2 supreme court judges and 268 district court judges. The 2 SC judges are there for life and the 286 DC judges for eight years. So far Trump has only appointed one supreme court judge and no DC judges.

That's a lot of ground to make up for in four years.

 

[danez71]

The majority in some states were anti SSM also but when the issue finally made it to the SC it didn't matter. My point is there has to be a lot of support for RKBA at the state level (majority of the states) before the SC will ever hear a case. I personally think that the SC had no business ruling on SSM but they did anyway. Many states at the time still had anti SSM laws but were forced comply to the SC ruling.

The issue of states rights in the matter of SSM was decided. The states don't have a right anymore to make that call. RKBA could be the law of the land and gained in the same way.

I think we mostly agree.

Where I differ is that I think the Pertuta case fit your scenario in that it basically came down to the question of Do you have the Right to carry outside he home.

Most states you can relatively easy in some form (OC or CC). Not so in CA.

Clearly, the misguided majority in CA are infringing the 2A Right of its citizens in a way that the majority of the nation isn't infringed upon.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think we mostly agree.

Where I differ is that I think the Pertuta case fit your scenario in that it basically came down to the question of Do you have the Right to carry outside he home.

Most states you can relatively easy in some form (OC or CC). Not so in CA.

Clearly, the misguided majority in CA are infringing the 2A Right of its citizens in a way that the majority of the nation isn't infringed upon.

No doubt.

And the majority of the nation has their state constitutions and laws to thank for that.

CA was fine until all the wing nuts moved there and made it better.