Is there a reason the Supremes are reluctant to consider carry rights?

[Jim March]

If we have a right to carry, how would that affect federal buildings including courthouses? Would the US Supreme Court building be forced to install gun-check lockers near the door similar to what Arizona, Washington and a few other states do now in state courts and other state/local government buildings?

Is it possible the Supremes (including one or two of the "Heller 5") fear this and are hence unwilling to take up a "carry case"?

 

[Tom Servo]

We're not sure they're reluctant. They could just be waiting for the right case and right situation, like a circuit split.

Furthermore, we need at least four Justices who want to hear such a case. Any case they take is going to be controversial, and as a result, very time consuming. This is on top of an already crowded docket.

Even if we get a case heard, and we get a favorable outcome, they can ban guns from courthouses. Most states already do, so there's precedent for that. I really doubt such a thing weighs on their decision of whether or not to hear a case.

 

[Jim March]

Furthermore, we need at least four Justices who want to hear such a case.

Yes and no. If we have four solid on our side but they know there isn't a fifth, "our" four may very well not want it to come up yet.

Even if we get a case heard, and we get a favorable outcome, they can ban guns from courthouses. Most states already do, so there's precedent for that. I really doubt such a thing weighs on their decision of whether or not to hear a case.

Ummm...under Heller guns can be banned from being brought into a courthouse. But banned from coming up to the front door? If there's a right to carry as well as a right to self defense...maybe not, because people have been murdered at the front steps of a courthouse because that was a place they would be known to be unarmed. That is exactly what happened to police chief Sid Hatfield:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Hatfield

...and that story has been repeated since. All it would take would be some woman called for jury duty or whatever who had a solid restraining order out...

 

[Nickel Plated]

Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of cases per year that want to be heard by the Supreme Court. And they can only do a couple dozen at best. It's a simple matter of odds. Gun rights aren't the only important issue in this country that requires the SC's attention.
They're not our personal arbiters of gun rights. They still have to maintain an image of impartiality and legitimacy. If all they hear are carry cases brought before them by pro-gun groups. Then suddenly they look like some one-issue activist court. They try very hard to avoid that since it seems the Supreme Court is really the only branch of our government that still has any shred of respect and dignity left in the eyes of the people.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

If we have four solid on our side but they know there isn't a fifth, "our" four may very well not want it to come up yet.

That, frankly, is what concerns me. One of the majority in Heller and McDonald may have reluctantly voted to allow guns in the home, but has indicated an unwillingness to allow guns in public. OTOH, if the Heller minority were sure of a fifth vote, why wouldn't they vote to grant cert to one of the cases so they could effectively restrict the right to one's residence?

I think the simplest explanation is probably correct: They are very busy and aren't willing to grant cert until a circuit split forces them to.

 

[KyJim]

I think another reason SCOTUS has not granted cert in earlier cases is because it wants input from the various circuit judges. Remember that, in many ways, this is "new" ground the Supreme Court would be plowing. The Supreme Court would undoubtedly like having the benefit of opinions from a variety of jurists before diving off the deep end.

 

[jason_iowa]

I think after citizens united the SCOTUS is in pretty low standing. Not looked on as low as congress but that is not a very high bar.

There is an ebb and flow to our rights. As much as we like to think of them as being hard and fast this is just not the case. Compared to free speech/press and the 4th amendment the 2ed amendment is doing pretty well. Society is struggling with the 14th amendment as well.

 

[Spats McGee]

I think another reason SCOTUS has not granted cert in earlier cases is because it wants input from the various circuit judges. Remember that, in many ways, this is "new" ground the Supreme Court would be plowing. The Supreme Court would undoubtedly like having the benefit of opinions from a variety of jurists before diving off the deep end.

I think this is a point that bears repeating. I have long since lost count of the times I've heard folks say, or post, to the effect of, "The 2A has been the law since 1791." It is often overlooked that the 2A was first incorporated to the States in the last 5 years. In legal timelines, that's very recent. The body of law developing for the 2A is still in its infancy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think after citizens united the SCOTUS is in pretty low standing. Not looked on as low as congress but that is not a very high bar.

There is an ebb and flow to our rights. As much as we like to think of them as being hard and fast this is just not the case....

Another factor is that pretty much every time the Supreme Court (or courts of appeal for that matter) decides something it tends to make some group unhappy. It can be tough to be consistently held in high regard when whenever you do what you're supposed to do you step on some group's beliefs or values or interests or perceived rights.

And that is perhaps part of the reason the Founding Fathers shielded federal judges from the direct political influence of the body politic.

 

[natman]

Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of cases per year that want to be heard by the Supreme Court. And they can only do a couple dozen at best.

This.

SCOTUS gets swamped by requests. They can only hear a few. That means that every year thousands of cases, all of which are important to someone, don't get heard.

They cherry pick which cases they are going to hear. One of the things that gets their attention is splits between the various circuit courts. Such a split may come up in the near future with the Peruta v San Diego case. So patience. The Supreme Court moves at the speed of history, not our expectations.

 

[speedrrracer]

Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of cases per year that want to be heard by the Supreme Court. And they can only do a couple dozen at best. It's a simple matter of odds. Gun rights aren't the only important issue in this country that requires the SC's attention.

Which is why there needs to be more than one group of decrepit, old folks that constitutes the "Supreme Court".

The Constitution says there is only 1 Supreme Court, but it doesn't say how that can be implemented.

There is the same number of Supreme Courts today as there were 200+ years ago, and we have 60 times the population. They are clearly a bottleneck in our legal system, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there should perhaps be 540 SCOTUS Justices in 60 chambers, hearing cases at 60 times the current rate.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

They are clearly a bottleneck in our legal system, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there should perhaps be 540 SCOTUS Justices in 60 chambers, hearing cases at 60 times the current rate.

Then why not do away with the Supreme Court and have the circuits be the final arbiters of the Constitution. To put it another way, who is to decide if one Supreme Court group differs with another in its interpretation of the Constitution? Would we then need a Supreme Supreme Court?

 

[Nickel Plated]

Well that wouldn't be the same thing since each circuit still only oversees their own chunk of the country. so a difference in rulings between circuits means you have different laws in different parts of the country.
A larger Supreme Court with several chambers would still set the standard nationwide regardless of which chamber the case goes to.
Sure there would be the issue where the outcome of your case still depends on which particular group of judges hears is. But it's not much different from what we have now where the outcome depends on which particular judge dies and which replaces him.
Just change it so that whichever particular group gets the case, the have final say and it applies throughout the nation. No whining, No appealing to a different group of supremes.

 

[Evan Thomas]

It's hard enough now to get Senate confirmation of Federal judicial appointments, including those of Supreme Court nominees. The prospect of multiplying 9 appointments by a factor of X, presumably in one fell swoop, is, um... not pretty.

And, in any case, I don't think that having more than one group of judges as the final arbiters of Constitutional law would work out too well -- there would inevitably be conflicts, and what then?

 

[JimDandy]

Sure there would be the issue where the outcome of your case still depends on which particular group of judges hears is. But it's not much different from what we have now where the outcome depends on which particular judge dies and which replaces him.
Just change it so that whichever particular group gets the case, the have final say and it applies throughout the nation.

The problem with that is the cases are representative. Let's say there are two Supreme Courts. Through whatever fluke of timing, One of them gets packed during Reagan's terms, and the other during Clinton's terms.

So the Conservative Court A takes an abortion case, and somehow finagles overturning Roe. Abortion is now illegal. At the same time, Liberal Court B is doing the same thing to Heller. So while Court A takes a case to re-establish Heller, Court B re-establishes Roe, then expands Fair Housing to cover Purple People from Planet Xylon. Conservative Court A gets a little miffed, and not only gets rid of protection for the Purple People from Planet Xylon, they strike the Fair Housing Act altogether for discriminating against people not in a protected class at all.

And they continue back and forth. Not only does everyone have to keep track of both courts to know what the supreme law of the land is, it's flipping back and forth as the two courts bicker with each other. So you may have had a right to concealed carry when you applied for your permit but by the time the State gets around to issuing it, you don't. So they refuse. Then they have to issue it, and the day it shows up in the mail, they no longer have to issue it, so they revoke it that day.

Even worse, what happens if they take the same case? People for Superpacs sues the FEC to be able to donate more to political campaigns gets taken up by one court, while People for Individual Expression suing the FEC because they think ANY money from superpacs are destroying the one-man-one-vote concept. Then on the same day they issue opposing rulings. Then what?

 

[2ndsojourn]

Just getting one Supreme Court Justice approved by congress is a challenge. Can you all, even in your wildest imagination, see another entire panel nominated by this or any president, passing congressional approval?

 

[KyJim]

There is the same number of Supreme Courts today as there were 200+ years ago, and we have 60 times the population. They are clearly a bottleneck in our legal system, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there should perhaps be 540 SCOTUS Justices in 60 chambers, hearing cases at 60 times the current rate.

You are wrong on a number of points. The Supreme Court originally consisted of six members and the number of members has varied somewhat. It has been at nine for a good number of years. There was no intermediate appellate court. There were simply the trial courts, called circuit courts then, and the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices were required to ride the circuit, meaning they had to travel many miles and act as trial judges in cases. This constituted the biggest part of their workload for the first hundred years or so.

So, with intermediate appellate courts, no trial court duties, and larger staffs, I'm not sure the actual workload on the justices is really any greater than it has traditionally been. While they (or their staff) may have to review thousands of requests for review, most are clearly not worthy of review and are easily disposed of.

 

[62coltnavy]

In my opinion, the reasons the Supreme Court has not accepted a carry case outside the home are:
1. Moore did not create a true split, at least not technically in regards to its holding and the holdings in the other circuits on the east coast.
2. The Ninth Circuit had not weighed in when those other cases were considered, and until it issued Peruta, was the last remaining circuit in which a "may issue" law was in effect (in California and Hawaii.) I believe the Supreme Court wanted to hear from the Ninth before acting--and had Peruta come out affirming the concealed carry law, there would be no split and nothing for the high court to resolve.

Pertuta created not just a split but a chasm--that is, as long as it remains the controlling authority in the circuit. IF affirmed on en banc, or if en banc is declined, there is a substantial probability that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will take the case to resolve the massive philosophical split on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the hoe, as well as the massive confusion as to the manner in which "intermediate scrutiny" is to be applied.

 

[Jim March]

IF affirmed on en banc, or if en banc is declined, there is a substantial probability that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court

Like heck there is.

If the grabber side wanted a "carry case" at the Supreme Court they would have appealed Moore v. Madigan instead of allowing IL to go shall-issue.

"Losing" Chicago to the pro-gun side was an enormous blow for the bad guys. In a year or two when crimes drops in Chicago and "blood doesn't run in the streets" what are they going to say?

Why did they agree to the loss? Because the "Heller 5" were still there. Still are NOW.

The grabbers aren't going to appeal a loss for their team in Peruta to the Supremes. To en banc, yes, absolutely. Unless Kamela Harris is just...incredibly stupid.

Their side needs to delay a carry case until Obama or his successor gets a chance to replace a Heller 5 justice. Our side needs to hurry it up before that happens.

 

[62coltnavy]

The problem with Moore for the grabber side is that it merely concluded and directed that Illinois enact a carry law--but did not direct what kind of carry law. Illinois was perfectly free (aside from politics) to enact a "may issue" concealed carry law, or even an open carry law. Although you see the argument often enough (as in the Brady Campaign motion for rehearing in Peruta, and the similar arguments made by LCAV), there is a substantial likelihood that the Supreme Court will recognize a right to "bear" arms outside the home--Heller tells us as much, no matter how often that specific language is ignored by the anits.

So instead what they are trying to do is to ban or severely restrict concealed carry, arguing that even if there is a right to carry, concealed carry may be constitutionally banned. That is what all of the east coast cases have said and where they want the Ninth Circuit to go.

Moore therefore was not a good case for the banners to appeal. And they've won all of the others at the Circuit level, so it is only the 2A supporters who are appealing, not governmental authorities or associated anti groups. Peruta, on the other hand, is a must win case for their side--the only reason "they" would not appeal it is because of an interest in preserving the decisions they've gotten in 2, 3, and 4. But none of those groups get to tell Kamala Harris what to do--and unless she is denied intervention, or fails to obtain a reversal through en banc proceedings, will likely appeal no matter. You have to understand that she is a true believer in gun bans, gun registration and a ban on concealed carry for the whole state of California, nor is she beholden to any activist group, and as far as can be ascertained from the pleadings, did not coordinating with them before filing her motions.