SCOTUS Declines To Hear Gun Rights Cases

SCOTUS Declines To Hear Gun Rights Cases

This is a discussion on SCOTUS Declines To Hear Gun Rights Cases within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The US Supreme Court has declined to hear three gun law cases. Quote: The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Sig 210
  • 1 Post By Sig 210
  • 5 Post By ccw9mm

Thread: SCOTUS Declines To Hear Gun Rights Cases

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017

    SCOTUS Declines To Hear Gun Rights Cases

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


    Quote:
    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.

    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...-politics.html
    Aceoky likes this.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Link is broken
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Link is broken
    Thanks, fixed it.
    Aceoky likes this.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,061
    The one in which I'm quite interested is the push to the "good cause/need" clause that exists in many states, which they use as justification for denials. Of course, this leaves a vast majority of people denied outright for arbitrary reasons, as though self-defense of life and limb doesn't qualify as need. It would be great if this challenge reached SCOTUS in the next year or so. The outright arbitrariness and high incidence of abuse of this is tailor-made for SCOTUS to redress. And it'll be the one thing that could zap the lunacy in NYC, Los Angeles, Hawaii, NJ and a few other might-never-issue zones around the country.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    I don't think any of these actually goes to core issues. The age related stuff could be readily fixed by returning to a uniform age of majority
    at 20-or 21. I would have hated that as a young man. As an old man, I'd favor that. Having raised a son and watched him change during the 18-25 time period, I know that adulthood really doesn't start at 18, the law on some issues notwithstanding.

    During the first 170-180 years of our history the age of majority was held to be 21. It was derived from English Common Law. It was not established by the Constitution, nor was it changed to 18 by any Constitutional change. It has been merely set as a matter of legislation, custom, and tradition.

    I'm not sufficiently familiar with the 3rd case revolving around DC and Virginia sales to comment.

    I would not take these 3 cases as a prognostication of what The Supremes might do with NY and CT in the future.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't think any of these actually goes to core issues. The age related stuff could be readily fixed by returning to a uniform age of majority
    at 20-or 21. I would have hated that as a young man. As an old man, I'd favor that. Having raised a son and watched him change during the 18-25 time period, I know that adulthood really doesn't start at 18, the law on some issues notwithstanding.

    During the first 170-180 years of our history the age of majority was held to be 21. It was derived from English Common Law. It was not established by the Constitution, nor was it changed to 18 by any Constitutional change. It has been merely set as a matter of legislation, custom, and tradition.

    I'm not sufficiently familiar with the 3rd case revolving around DC and Virginia sales to comment.

    I would not take these 3 cases as a prognostication of what The Supremes might do with NY and CT in the future.
    Other than once again forcefully calling shenanigans on your age of majority comment, I pretty much agree with this.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The one in which I'm quite interested is the push to the "good cause/need" clause that exists in many states, which they use as justification for denials.
    That one is before the court in the form of Drake v. Jerejian, formerly Drake vs Filko. Its about the NJ prohibition on concealed carry. There is an appeals court split between the 3rd circuit court of appeals ruling that upheld the NJ law and the 9th circuit court of appeals ruling that CA "may issue" is unconstitutional. Maybe, just maybe the issue of "may issue" will be resolved.


    Supreme Court won?t hear three Second Amendment gun cases

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,351
    I am not fully surprised by this really. If the Court had heard the cases and sided favorably the whole house of cards surrounding gun laws would begin to tumble. If the Court had decided unfavorably, they risk becoming irrelevant to the people.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors