Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court

[xsubsailor]

I think I just saw a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel  

 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the Court declined to hear a case challenging California’s handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county’s refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote after most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

“But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court’s newest member, joined Thomas’ statement on the court’s refusal to hear the case, calling the decision by the 9th circuit on Peruta v. San Diego “indefensible.”

A case needs to be approved by at least four justices in order to get on the Supreme Court’s docket.

“The Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry,” Thomas wrote. “Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.”

The San Diego County Sheriff’s department has very narrow restrictions for concealed carry permits. Only those who can prove they have a regular need for self-defense against a specific threat are granted concealed permits.

“The whole point of the Sheriff’s policy is to confine concealed-carry licenses to a very narrow subset of law-abiding residents,” Peruta’s attorneys wrote. “And because California law prohibits openly carrying a handgun outside the home, the result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.”

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/26/justice-thomas-calls-out-the-supreme-court-for-not-believing-in-the-second-amendment/

[bersaguy]

Supreme Court justice Kennedy is considering retiring soon so once Trump puts a replacement for Kennedy on the bench I would guess the case will be appealed back to the SC again and get a hearing next time..........JMHO

[Grand Torino]

This is what happens when appointees are political instead of justices following the Constitution and rule of law. It doesn't take a college degree to know Thomas is exactly right.

[btq96r]

Not sure if this was a different case or not, but I recall debating a circuit court ruling about California carry law here.  Basically, the challenge has to be structured to address that CA's ban on open carry makes any form of cause based requirements to get a permit too burdensome as to be a restriction on 2A rights.  Asking the court to rule regarding concealed bans on their own merits without tying in the prohibition on open carry is a losing fight.

[Worriedman]

This goes to having to prove “good cause” for carrying a weapon one one's person.  Subjective filter for the Police State to deny the Citizen's who they supposed serve to be forced to be a target sans allowing a Constitutional Right to be enjoyed.

Statist got to State...

[chances R]

On 6/26/2017 at 5:16 PM, Grand Torino said:

This is what happens when appointees are political instead of justices following the Constitution and rule of law. It doesn't take a college degree to know Thomas is exactly right.A

And this is what really rubs me when justices are there to interpret the Constitution, not make law.  As Justice Thomas points out the 1st and 4th Amendments have been reviewed numerous times while the 2nd has been virtually ignored with the exception of Heller.  

[DaveTN]

The question “Can anyone strap on a gun and walk down the street regardless of where they live?” will have to eventually be answered by The Supreme Court of the United States.

I thought that would have to be answered in Heller or McDonald, I would have never guessed they would rip the baby in half; but they did.

This is a States Rights question that the SCOTUS doesn’t want to answer.

If they say “Yes, they do.” There are states that will not comply. My guess is Tennessee would be one of them.

If they say “No, they don’t” there are states that will outlaw gun ownership.

I don’t know how this will play out. I’m a staunch States Rights supporter and don’t want the Feds in charge of anything if I have a choice. The only way the Feds should have a say in whether or not people can carry is if they are responsible for law enforcement. I know Obama was headed towards a large Federal police force and would have gladly jumped on that; but I don’t think very many of us here want that.

I suspect this will end the same way it did in Illinois. California will have to have “shall issue” carry permits with reasonable restrictions. I also suspect the court would say (if it ever goes there) that having to prove you have some “special danger” is not a reasonable restriction. Things like Hi cap mags and types of guns will probably be left up to the Federal Districts.

[chances R]

Along those lines, California Federal judge blocks California magazine ban

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-court-guns-idUSKBN19L0C4