This makes me wonder why we even have a Supreme Court!

[E4 No More]

http://news.msn.com/us/supreme-court-stays-out-of-gun-debate-for-now

 

 

This has been an issue for DECADES, yet these clowns keep taking a pass. Gee, I thought that it was the purpose of the Supreme Court to hear cases and do things like judge the constitutionality of the case? This is a can that just keeps getting kicked down an unending road.

[2.ooohhh]

Until there is a case to overturn I doubt they will get involved.

[E4 No More]

There is a case to hear: the constitutionality of the New York law.

[gun sane]

I can offer in SCOTUS' defense that their rulings in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago gave us victories over deeply entrenched gun suppression.  Although those decisions didn't give us complete freedom as we would like, it did knock the anti-gunners back on their collective tails for a spell.  Perhaps the justices want to give the issue a breather.  Besides, given Chief Justice Roberts' asinine opinion on Obamacare, maybe we should see what the New York gun owners will do with that POS legislation.  

[RED333]

I will have to calm down a bit before I make a post.

[2.ooohhh]

There is a case to hear: the constitutionality of the New York law.

 

:shake:

[peejman]

I think it's simply a "we've addressed this enough lately, go read the prior decisions and figure it out" answer.

[2.ooohhh]

If a resident or group of residents file with the court vs. the state of NY then the supreme court could choose to hear the case, but I'm guessing that the law will be struck down by a lower NY based court before it gets that far based on the case law that the supreme court has already ruled on in recent years.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm guessing they are expecting the Federal court system to hear it first.

[Raoul]

The supreme court doesn't take the lead on any issue. There is a process that involves lower court decisions. As much as we'd like SCOTUS to be proactive on gun laws just think what the Warren court could have done to us if that was the process.

 

I'm guessing they are expecting the Federal court system to hear it first.

[RED333]

It will need to be heard in a lower court and turned over, then the SCOTUS will give us their $0.02.

For what that is worth.

[LagerHead]

^Yep. And there are plenty of cases coming their way. They may wait for one with a little more substance. It may be worth our while too.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know about any more substance. That one kinda has something to say about just everything.

[Oh Shoot]

Just as in Heller and McDonald, by not mentioning carry but only ownership, SCOTUS basically said by this latest inaction that carry is a states' right issue.

 

Somebody needs to challenge it in DC if you want to get them to rule on whether the federal government can ban carry. And then if they say the fed cannot, then another suit in a state to see if they will incorporate it as a right for everyone.

 

That's how the Heller to McDonald thing went.

 

Seems they'll almost certainly have to eventually rule on something from  CO or NY or CT restrictions, though, as that also involves ownership.

 

I hope the balance of the Court isn't lopsided left by the time they do, though.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[E4 No More]

Let me remind y'all that are stating that there's a process to follow that this an issue decades old. How long did it take them to take on gay marriage?

[DaveTN]

The SCOTUS has answered the question on the right to keep arms; they have given the indication of how they would rule on the right to bear arms.

 

It’s States Rights VS The 2nd Amendment. Most of us are pretty sure how they would rule. They have made it pretty clear that you have a right to own a gun, but the State will decide when and where you can carry in public.

 

There are other cases in the wings. The 7th Federal District has ruled that Illinois has 180 days to come up with a plan that is not a complete ban on carry.

 

The SCOTUS generally hears cases that the Federal Districts don’t agree on. They decided not to hear the case and gave no comment. That is not unusual.

 

 

 

[Guest PapaB]

Let me remind y'all that are stating that there's a process to follow that this an issue decades old. How long did it take them to take on gay marriage?

 

Yes, this issue is decades old, however SCOTUS doesn't hear 'issues' they hear cases about specific laws and this is a new law. It simply isn't time.

 

Think about this, several states are passing a variety of gun ban laws. This will put lawsuits into the federal courts which, after being overturned or upheld, will wind up on the steps of SCOTUS. That's why the lower courts were created, to free up SCOTUS for bigger cases. Perhaps NY will be the big one or maybe it won't. If there are 5 or 6 states with similar issues, they could address all the issues by choosing just 1 case.

 

Good things come to those that wait.

[E4 No More]

Yes, this issue is decades old, however SCOTUS doesn't hear 'issues' they hear cases about specific laws and this is a new law. It simply isn't time.

 

Think about this, several states are passing a variety of gun ban laws. This will put lawsuits into the federal courts which, after being overturned or upheld, will wind up on the steps of SCOTUS. That's why the lower courts were created, to free up SCOTUS for bigger cases. Perhaps NY will be the big one or maybe it won't. If there are 5 or 6 states with similar issues, they could address all the issues by choosing just 1 case.

 

Good things come to those that wait.

 

The SCOTUS has answered the question on the right to keep arms; they have given the indication of how they would rule on the right to bear arms.

 

It’s States Rights VS The 2nd Amendment. Most of us are pretty sure how they would rule. They have made it pretty clear that you have a right to own a gun, but the State will decide when and where you can carry in public.

 

There are other cases in the wings. The 7th Federal District has ruled that Illinois has 180 days to come up with a plan that is not a complete ban on carry.

 

The SCOTUS generally hears cases that the Federal Districts don’t agree on. They decided not to hear the case and gave no comment. That is not unusual.

The SC ruled that the constitution applies to the states as well as the federal government long ago. How long has NYC banned guns in their city? How long has Chicago? How quickly, such as the Florida vote, did it take other issues to reach the SC?

 

 

The 2nd Amendment says that we have a right to bear arms, and there are no limitations to that right mentioned. The SC is supposed to uphold the constitution; not just pieces of it. I hear people talk about erosions of our rights if they give ground, but erosions have already happened.

 

I'm sick of this piecemeal crap!

Edited April 16, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[JayC]

Oh Shoot,

 

That's not correct, re-read Heller about the right to bear arms, they clearly state that issue was not before them and therefore they couldn't rule on it.  They lawyer who brought the case (and the McDonald case) said he excluded the right to bear from the case to break the ruling up into small chunks.  

 

And there is a case working it's way through the federal system by the same lawyer who argued Heller and McDonald to do just that, Palmer vs Washington, DC hopefully it gets to SCOTUS before we're all dead from old age.

 

It's far from settled case law, there is virtually no case law on the right to bear arms from SCOTUS and we do have a lot of lower courts that disagree on the matter.

 

Just as in Heller and McDonald, by not mentioning carry but only ownership, SCOTUS basically said by this latest inaction that carry is a states' right issue.

 

Somebody needs to challenge it in DC if you want to get them to rule on whether the federal government can ban carry. And then if they say the fed cannot, then another suit in a state to see if they will incorporate it as a right for everyone.

 

That's how the Heller to McDonald thing went.

 

Seems they'll almost certainly have to eventually rule on something from  CO or NY or CT restrictions, though, as that also involves ownership.

 

I hope the balance of the Court isn't lopsided left by the time they do, though.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2013 by JayC

[Oh Shoot]

Oh Shoot,

 

That's not correct, re-read Heller about the right to bear arms, they clearly state that issue was not before them and therefore they couldn't rule on it.  ...

 

Well, certainly neither suit was about carry, but only ownership, but I don't recall any written majority opinion saying they "couldn't" rule on that part of 2A also?

 

Indeed, what gets me about all this is that the majority opinions in Heller did indeed often mention affirmation of "keep and bear".

 

And in McDonald, only the specific restrictions of carrying arms in sensitive areas was mentioned as a restriction on the "bear" part.

 

But all in all, it's clear that "everybody" agrees that neither decision did rule de facto on right to "bear", so I reckon it's a bit moot.

 

However, see the case that DaveTN mentioned, seems that one may work its way up to SCOTUS regarding carry specifically.

 

- OS

Edited April 16, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

While they aren't prohibited from ruling on matters not before them, they generally don't.  So unless the plaintiff says this part of the law is unconstitutional then courts won't rule...  And you're right the ruling does say that restrictions on bearing may very well be constitutional, but there is no way you can claim an entire state is one of those zones.

 

I'm not suggesting it will be a free for all type ruling...  but I forsee a lot of restrictions being placed on the government.

 

It's a long process where you chip away one layer at a time at unconstitutional laws.

 

Well, certainly neither suit was about carry, but only ownership, but I don't recall any written majority opinion saying they "couldn't" rule on that part of 2A also?

 

Indeed, what gets me about all this is that the majority opinions in Heller did indeed often mention affirmation of "keep and bear".

 

And in McDonald, only the specific restrictions of carrying arms in sensitive areas was mentioned as a restriction on the "bear" part.

 

But all in all, it's clear that "everybody" agrees that neither decision did rule de facto on right to "bear", so I reckon it's a bit moot.

 

However, see the case that DaveTN mentioned, seems that one may work its way up to SCOTUS regarding carry specifically.

 

- OS