SCOTUS Won't Hear RKBA Cases

[MagnumDweeb]

So there won't be any RKBA cases before the SCOTUS this year it looks like. http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-challenges-gun-laws-143850213.html

They don't even provide a reason it looks like. If they ruled against us I'd like to know why. What their justification was. The Antis are going to no doubt jump and cheer about all of this. If SCOTUS is going to rule against us I'd like to at least know why, what their justification is. Because if you're going to abandon the 2nd Amendment, then please us what the reason is for you abandonment.

This is disgusting, to not even take one case is complete and utter nonsense.

Now we can tell all those folks sitting on the side lines not wanting to join the NRA or any other RKBA groups, that they can't rely on the courts to protect their rights.

 

[Old Dog]

It's pretty clear that SCOTUS won't deign to accept any 2A cases until they've got a couple more liberal justices onboard.

Didn't anyone else see the MSM's recent free publicity for former Justice John Paul Steven's case for repealing or changing the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Trent]

Well, going to play devil's advocate here.

The first case mentioned - banning carry for 18-20 year olds - I do look at that as a "state issue". I'd rather not have the Federal government getting involved with basic human rights based on some arbitrary biological clock.

Which brings us to case #2 mentioned - banning sales of firearms (more correctly, "handguns") to people under 21 years old. This is what happens when the Federal Government sticks it's nose in to business based on aforementioned "arbitrary biological clock".

To be honest the third case would have probably had a more profound impact. The Federal gun control act of 68 has been an impenetrable iron wall to date, and I think it's fair to say has been abused by the Federal government the most. Through the interstate commerce clause they have imposed all manner of arbitrary limitations on a class of goods which - unlike car parts or other consumer goods - have their roots traced directly to an item in our Bill of Rights.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Frankly I think that the two NRA cases should not have been engaged in until we had everything else sorted out. The restrictions in NY,Maryland and other states should be the primary focus. We must secure our gains first before branching out.

 

[vamo]

Its important to remember that the supreme court can't from a logistical stand point be expected to take every case before them. Its one court room and there are thousands if not millions of attorneys vying for an opportunity to get their case before them.

Didn't anyone else see the MSM's recent free publicity for former Justice John Paul Steven's case for repealing or changing the 2nd Amendment?

Haven't read it but I actually consider it positive when an anti gun person admits changing the 2nd amendment is required for restrictive gun control laws. Keep in mind the alternative is a person that believes that the government can do what it wants and the 2nd isn't applicable today.

 

[Old Dog]

Did find this ... apparently, a fourth case is headed for private conference, Drake v. Jerejian, and it also concerns carry laws in New Jersey. Hmm.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/supreme-court-wont-hear-three-second-amendment-gun-cases/

 

[Frank Ettin]

The simple fact is that SCOTUS will hear those cases that four of the justices want to hear. We will never know why.

In any case, SCOTUS received about 10,000 petitions for certiorari a year and will hear (and can reasonably be expected to hear) about 70 to 80.

 

[Old Fuff]

I agree with post #3, although I wish that I didn't have to.

It should be remembered that in the Heller opinion the court rejected clear language in the Second Amendment, and made an exception for what they called "reasonable regulation." Before bringing any cases forward for Supreme Court review this point should be remembered.

The attorneys representing our side will have a formidable task in convincing the Court that the regulations/statutes that we object too are indeed unreasonable, and considering the make-up of the present (and probably future) Supreme Courts that may not be easy.

We should also remember that the Constitution offers other means for “the people” to address various issues, and that includes the ballot box. Perhaps the majority of Justices in this instance had this in mind.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I am more of the opinion that the SCOTUS gets an enormous number of requests each year and RKBA cases are likely a small percentage that should, IMHO, be handled at the state level. Also, the SCOTUS finally incorporated the 2nd amendment which sets a huge precedent for lower courts to follow.
SCOTUS made the the law less vague with Heller and later with McDonald v. Chicago which cited Heller and was the case which incorporated 2A. Heller and McDonald were really the turning point not only in that they held the 2A was to be applied against the states, but also that Cruikshank and the cases that followed were no longer good law on which to base decisions.

Long story Boring: The SCOTUS probably has better things to do and won't likely take many more RKBA cases without allowing their decisions over the past few years to take effect and let the states sort out their laws to pass constitutional muster.
Since I'm in Vegas, I should start taking odds on which circuit raises the first interesting cases after incorporation. My money would be on the 9th circus.

 

[SilentStalker]

It's pretty clear that SCOTUS won't deign to accept any 2A cases until they've got a couple more liberal justices onboard.

Didn't anyone else see the MSM's recent free publicity for former Justice John Paul Steven's case for repealing or changing the 2nd Amendment?

Originally posted by: Old Dog

IMO, Old Dog, hit the nail on the head. Seems to me that this is a tactical move on their part.

 

[CoalTrain49]

You will be seeing more of this.

The way the supreme court sees it, right or wrong, is there really isn't anything that needs to be changed. They have handed down some favorable decisions within the scope of their authority. All they can really do is limit states from abusing 2A as they did in McDonald v Chicago. If they had done anymore they would have been overstepping and disregarding 10A. I think this is where too many people start to drift on the constitution. The supreme court will protect your 2A right to a point and beyond that they are going to let the states hammer it out. I don't expect that will change even with more liberal judges. If they won't hear a case a liberal judge can't rule on it and that is a benefit for us weather you realize it or not. Best to let sleeping dogs sleep.

In order for anything more substantial to come from the supreme court the constitution will have to be changed. There is zero chance of that happening.

The fed supreme court is a dead end street. Focus your effort at the state level.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Court (from its point of view) went pretty far out on the limb in deciding the Heller and McDonald cases. I think they want to let things rest for a while.

The next logical step will be deciding whether there's a right to carry outside the home (in the guise of "shall issue" licensing). They're obviously not in any hurry to get into that. And the three cases mentioned in this thread are not directly on that point anyway.

The immediate arena for us is this fall's congressional elections.

 

[taliv]

i don't think there's any huge conspiracy. i'm not even sure they're playing some sort of strategic game there.

what's seems straightforward to me is that the justices believe all the rights can be reasonably restricted. they defer to the legislatures which represent the people. they probably all (with one exception (clarence)) would say preventing a minor from owning a gun is reasonable. so why would they go out of their way to hear a case they're not going to overturn?

if we want gun laws changed, we should be working through the legislature. the courts are a last resort.

 

[vamo]

Quote:
It's pretty clear that SCOTUS won't deign to accept any 2A cases until they've got a couple more liberal justices onboard.

Didn't anyone else see the MSM's recent free publicity for former Justice John Paul Steven's case for repealing or changing the 2nd Amendment?
Originally posted by: Old Dog

IMO, Old Dog, hit the nail on the head. Seems to me that this is a tactical move on their part.

How does this even make sense? Are you guys suggesting this court wants to wait til it becomes more liberal to influence American gun policy? Why in the world would the justices currently on the court want to wait til members they may not agree with join?

See frank's comment

The simple fact is that SCOTUS will hear those cases that four of the justices want to hear. We will never know why.

So the four "conservative" justices currently on the court want American gun policy to be decided after they're replaced by liberals. While gun cases might be our pet issue on this board the simple fact is the justices felt their were other cases this session that required their attention, they just don't have the time to review every single case that comes to them.

 

[Trent]

if we want gun laws changed, we should be working through the legislature. the courts are a last resort.

Bingo.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Second to last resort.


I think, at least with some of these cases, it's probably better. It's bad for those individuals, but a bad ruling on a case is far worse than none at all.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Did find this ... apparently, a fourth case is headed for private conference, Drake v. Jerejian, and it also concerns carry laws in New Jersey. Hmm.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...ent-gun-cases/

There's an open discussion here:


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=744381
.

 

[Derry 1946]

In any case, SCOTUS received about 10,000 petitions for certiorari a year and will hear (and can reasonably be expected to hear) about 70 to 80.

They do currently hear about 70 or 80 a year, but until recently they averaged closer to 120.

 

[gc70]

So there won't be any RKBA cases before the SCOTUS this year it looks like.

SCOTUS has already taken up Abramski (straw purchases) and Castleman (definition of misdemeanor domestic violence) this year. While those cases might not be as interesting as others, they do deal with RKBA issues.

As for interesting and significant 2A cases, Drake v Jerejian (formerly Drake v Filco) is still pending and the recent ruling in Peruta could improve the prospects of that case being taken.

 

[BigBore44]

I disagree that a bad ruling is better than no ruling. When a ruling is handed down, it's pretty much permanent. No ruling offers the prospect of a positive ruling. And lets not forget what the 9th circuit just did in California. The people are being heard. And the courts are responding.

 

[Old Dog]

How does this even make sense? Are you guys suggesting this court wants to wait til it becomes more liberal to influence American gun policy? Why in the world would the justices currently on the court want to wait til members they may not agree with join?

Yes. Apparently you aren't aware that the President appoints Supreme Court Justices?

 

[taliv]

Second to last resort.

i stand corrected

 

[lemaymiami]

When I was in police work (back in the stone age....) we always watched court decisions carefully and 2A related issues before the Court were few and far between...These days in my opinion the political process will be far more important than the courts for every gun owner and user. The next two elections are pretty important in every way you can consider them. If our current president or the next one (if they're of the same persuasion) is the one who choses whe our next Court members will be.....

I'll leave that to everyone's imagination. Elections have consequences - let's hope everyone turns out in record numbers to express their views come November.

 

[jbrown50]

First, the right gun case simply has not come along yet. If the four "pro-2A" justices don't get a good feel on how Kennedy, the swing vote, will rule on a case they won't give it cert. Secondly, as Taliv wrote in post number 13, it doesn't make sense for them to go out of their way to hear a case they're not going to overturn?

 

[natman]

They do currently hear about 70 or 80 a year, but until recently they averaged closer to 120.

Let's call it 100 just for convenience. If they get 10,000 cases submitted but only hear 100, that's 1% that get heard.

That means that 99% of the cases submitted don't get heard. You shouldn't get too upset if a case that happens to be of interest to you is one of them.