Peruta denied Cert

[77zach]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...t-peruta-vs-san-diego-county/#comment-3488555

Norman vs Florida Republicans can now move forward. If Kennedy retires soon and is replaced with a good judge, the chances for national open carry, even in Kalifornia and NYC, become non zero. I'd say upwards of 20% chance.

 

[color of law]

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.

 

[color of law]

Please merge with http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?135363-Peruta-denied-Cert

 

[DeSchaine]

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.

 

[BB62]

I understand why they denied. ...

You may understand it - but spell it out: WHY?

All I see is the USSC refusing to do what they need to do - which is to smack down various lower courts.

 

[DeSchaine]

Doesn't really matter even if they do. Weren't there rulings where some of the lower courts were basically ignoring Heller anyways?

 

[color of law]

You may understand it - but spell it out: WHY?

All I see is the USSC refusing to do what they need to do - which is to smack down various lower courts.

Read DeSchaine's #8 above.

 

[utbagpiper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"[ ... ]
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.