• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Peruta denied Cert

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,842
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I understand why they denied. Read CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS. including the concurring judgments. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Then read Heller and McDonald. You will realize that carrying in public is clearly recognized through the second amendment.

Heller - "The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute."

"Acute" means characterized by sharpness or severity. Most acute in the home would mean not as much so as in other places like in public.

The lower courts refuse to recognize carry in public until the supreme says so, in no uncertain terms.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Yeah, this is such a crock of BS. Because its so damn important whose names can go on a birth certificate, but people being able to defend themselves outside their homes is irrelevant. Idiots.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Doesn't really matter even if they do. Weren't there rulings where some of the lower courts were basically ignoring Heller anyways?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No ruling is better than a bad ruling from the SCOTUS. And with the current makeup of the court, there is no guarantee that we'd get a good ruling on RKBA outside the home.

Let us remember that it was essentially this same court--with Scalia rather than Gorsuch--that gave us a fairly weak, important but weak, Heller decision on usable guns inside the home. If/When Kennedy and/or Gingburg retires, and if we get another textualist or two on the court, then we are in much better shape to get a good ruling.

In the meantime, every State that moves from discriminatory permits to non-discriminatory and every State that moves from non-discriminatory permits to recognizing some degree of permit free carry helps set the stage for how the RKBA is currently viewed in most of the nation. A national reciprocity law from Congress would also help

IOW, I think we need to fight and win all the State and federal legislative battles we can while continuing to win the social / public debate battle and then look to SCOTUS to get us RKBA in the People's Republics that we just won't get legislatively.

Charles
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
No ruling is better than a bad ruling from the SCOTUS. And with the current makeup of the court, there is no guarantee that we'd get a good ruling on RKBA outside the home.

Let us remember that it was essentially this same court--with Scalia rather than Gorsuch--that gave us a fairly weak, important but weak, Heller decision on usable guns inside the home. If/When Kennedy and/or Gingburg retires, and if we get another textualist or two on the court, then we are in much better shape to get a good ruling.

In the meantime, every State that moves from discriminatory permits to non-discriminatory and every State that moves from non-discriminatory permits to recognizing some degree of permit free carry helps set the stage for how the RKBA is currently viewed in most of the nation. A national reciprocity law from Congress would also help

IOW, I think we need to fight and win all the State and federal legislative battles we can while continuing to win the social / public debate battle and then look to SCOTUS to get us RKBA in the People's Republics that we just won't get legislatively.

Charles

I agree with the above 100%.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I agree with the above 100%.

Absolutely. And not only that people forget that Roberts, appointed by "The Chimp", aka the decider-guy, is a statist progressive. Mr Obama care is a tax. We need Kennedy and Ginsburg to go away to help sway him methinks.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,842
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not that I disagree with utbagpiper, but the court not resolving this matter makes 42 USC 1983 law suites tough to win. The court fully understand that Public Law 113-287, § 104906. "Protection of right of individuals to bear arms (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The 2d amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’ makes it clear that the federal government understands the constitutional right to carry in the public. Also see: 16 U.S. Code § 1a–7b - Protecting Americans from violent crime. But, because the USSC has not said so the lower courts will ignore the intent of the other two branches of the government.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"[ ... ]
Justice Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his dissent, wrote that the lower court’s ruling erred because it had narrowly considered only whether the regulatory concealed carry scheme established by a local sheriff was valid, not whether residents had a broader right to carry firearms openly in public. California law prohibits open carry.
“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 wrote.
[ ... ]"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/26/scotus-declines-hear-challenge-concealed-carry/

Well said. Worth emphasizing by repeating.
 
Top