SCOTUS Declines Three Gun Law Cases

T

thallub

New member
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear three gun law cases.



The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public.

The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21.

The third case was on the narrow question of whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms. The challenge to a federal law that restricts the interstate transport of guns, and a related Virginia law, were filed by several District of Columbia residents who wished to obtain guns via neighboring Virginia.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-challenges-gun-laws-143850213.html
 
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home, taking a pass on a hot topic that has divided the lower courts."

So I guess the various CA's remain split?
Click to expand...
Those particular cases were denied cert, but we just won in Peruta, which keeps the ball in play.
 
Those cases involved the question of people aged 18-21.

I'd rather see a case involving 2A rights outside the home and shall issue vs may issue without the added baggage of the 18-21 year olds.

18-21 year olds are violent. Statistics back it up. Let's figure out whether we have 2A rights outside the home and THEN figure out how that applies to the most violent age demographic.
 
Not every 18-21 year old is violent. Otherwise, we wouldn't give them guns and pay them to carry them in security, military, or law enforcement situations.

Also, females are far less likely to commit violent behavior than males. Perhaps we should restrict all males 21-25, and allow females 18-21 to carry?
 
publius42 said:
I'd rather see a case involving 2A rights outside the home and shall issue vs may issue without the added baggage of the 18-21 year olds.
Click to expand...
Precisely, and my hunch is that the SCOTUS agrees with you- they just obviously aren't going to declare it publicly. :)

We already have a pair of 2A SCOTUS cases on the books that are arguably quite narrow in actual scope, but have been applied very broadly- Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Miller. We don't need another one like this. :rolleyes:
 
I actually have a different opinion (purely speculative, of course), and I may well post it, later this evening after I get off work.
 
I think they're saving up their gun-nut juice for Drake. They will lay out the "carry right" there (they'll have to) and it's not impossible that some of the issues on the rest of this will get sorted in Drake or a similar "full on" carry case.

These three they tossed out danced around the issue. Drake goes to the heart of it.

If they turn down Drake we've got a real brawl on our hands.
 
There's only two more court systems that CAN chime in, after the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 9th.

That would be the 1st out of Massachussetts, and the DC circuit court (which wouldn't even be a split unless they disagreed with the 7th on a total ban on carry DC and IL were the only zero-carry jurisdictions). IF the argument is over may-issue then only MA remains as a state doing that without a 3-judge circuit panel weighing in.

I think the circuits are sufficiently "all in" to warrant the 9 Robes in DC making an appearance.
 
I'd rather see a case involving 2A rights outside the home and shall issue vs may issue without the added baggage of the 18-21 year olds.
Click to expand...

You will not be disappointed because Drake vs Jerejian ; formerly Drake vs Filko is in the wings. Alan Gura is handling this one.

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.
Click to expand...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/drake-v-jerejian/
 
I have never been crazy about the suits aimed at gun rights for 18 to 21 years old, not that I'm against them. These aren't the low hanging fruit we need to establish a body of case law favorable to us. I am more hopeful with Drake, especially with Peruta out (assuming nothing happens with it).
 
I really fear that the issue isn't being granted cert because some of the majority justices in Heller & McDonald know that one of the majority won't be able to bring himself to support carrying guns (shudder) in public. Better they keep denying cert than that they effectively limit the 2nd Amendment to the home. :eek:
 
I've decided that I'm not going to speculate. I'll hold my tongue (as much as I want to rant about a certain idea floating in my brain).

What I will say, is that I suspect Drake will get denied, if Peruta is not final. If Peruta is final, then it's an even bet the Court takes Drake.
 
The third case is Lane and as far as I can see has to do with buying a handgun skipping the DC FFL.

Dc residents can buy handguns in Va, they just have to have it sent to the DC FFL.

The case didn't address these issue, but the problem with the DC FFL are:
a) there is only one FFL in DC, and if he goes out of business, retires, etc., no handgun purchases ,or even transfers of owned ones, will be legal.

b) the DC FFL charges $125. This includes charges for firearms sent in for repair and replaced by the maker with one with a different serial, which can only be sent to the FFL (makers can send the original if repaired directly back to a consumer in DC by fedex).
 
18-21 year olds are violent. Statistics back it up. Let's figure out whether we have 2A rights outside the home and THEN figure out how that applies to the most violent age demographic.
Click to expand...

Dang right they are. Heck, when I was 20, I routinely opened carried both a loaded assault weapon and a loaded handgun. And carried explosives. And used them. I also carried a radio with which I could call in all manner of death from above. I was entrusted to lead and fight nine Americans and work together with 120 ANA dudes. Got some pretty pieces of colored ribbon saying I did a good job too.

And yet, after I got back, I'm suddenly not responsible to carry my Glock on campus?

After being charged with protecting the people of a foreign nation, I can't carry a gun to protect myself, and more importantly, my girlfriend?

How is that right?

I was deeply disappointed when the case wasn't heard by the point.

An 18 year old responsible gun owner has just as much at stake as a 68 year old responsible gun owner.
 
While I agree with you that you should be able to exercise the rights of an adult, jumping too far down the logical line might put off some justices and end VERY badly for all of us.

We need to establish that we have the right to arms (done), that it applies against all levels of government (done), that it exists both at home and in public (working on it), that it applies to reasonable people (working on it), and that 18-21yo adults are adults with the same rights (working on it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top