Link is broken
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 ...
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.
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.”
Thanks, fixed it.Link is broken
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.
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.
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.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.
Supreme Court won?t hear three Second Amendment gun cases
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.