|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 24, 2014, 11:39 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
SCOTUS Declines Three Gun Law Cases
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear three gun law cases.
Quote:
|
|
February 24, 2014, 12:05 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 241
|
Ouch - that hurts. I was so hoping the court would hear these cases.
TomNJVA
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed. |
February 24, 2014, 01:06 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
Also, from MSNBC
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...-adults-n37196 "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? |
February 24, 2014, 01:57 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 24, 2014, 02:31 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
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. |
February 24, 2014, 03:19 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
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? |
February 24, 2014, 03:23 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
February 24, 2014, 05:14 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I actually have a different opinion (purely speculative, of course), and I may well post it, later this evening after I get off work.
|
February 24, 2014, 06:15 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
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.
__________________
Jim March |
February 24, 2014, 06:20 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The fact is these cases were "one offs" and didn't create any splits. I hope Drake fares better.
|
February 24, 2014, 06:31 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
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.
__________________
Jim March |
February 24, 2014, 07:45 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 24, 2014, 07:52 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
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).
|
February 24, 2014, 09:52 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
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.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
February 25, 2014, 12:04 AM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
February 25, 2014, 07:21 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
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). |
March 3, 2014, 01:40 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
|
March 3, 2014, 03:24 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
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). |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|