U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights cases

[pens87pgh]

It isn't just Roberts. It only takes 4 Justices to vote to hear a case.

We can rule our Thomas, he has complained about the court not taking 2A cases. He is probably the most pro-2A of the bunch, and the closest to Constitutionally correct in the Heller decision.

We are seriously screwed if we can't get even 4 of these justices to vote to take up a 2A case. One YT video I watched on this earlier seemed to point that they're waiting for that "landmark" case. I'm skeptical on that theory but hope it's right

[streaker69]

We are seriously screwed if we can't get even 4 of these justices to vote to take up a 2A case. One YT video I watched on this earlier seemed to point that they're waiting for that "landmark" case. I'm skeptical on that theory but hope it's right

That landmark case will be heard shortly after Qanon drops the big one.

[wanneroo]

Roberts is another Bush failure. As time goes on I begin to understand more what a dud Bush ended up being as President.

[bigandy1966]

We always get screwed when it comes to Supreme Court Justices picked by Republican presidents.

Oh and do you think the SCOTUS justices picked by hilliary would have been better?
I'll bet you they would have NO PROBLEM hearing these cases , and they certainly wouldn't come up daisies for us
Just wait for RBG to kick the bucket.

[eagleclaw]

We always get screwed when it comes to Supreme Court Justices picked by Republican presidents.

Roberts isn't as bad as David Souter who was G.H. Bush's pick. However there seems to be more turncoats on the bench favoring the liberal point of view than the other way around. I think the GOP needs to do a better job vetting and selecting their future nominees. However do you really think a democrat president will make better selections for the SCOTUS especially when it comes to the second amendment?

[eagleclaw]

I wonder if any pro 2nd justices vote against taking cases because they are worried how Roberts will vote.

What's the point of the court taking a serious Second amendment case when we are not sure if it's going to be decided in our favor. 5-4 with a swing voter is not good odds.

[Gman106]

Dear Lord, In your supreme wisdom, surely you see it's time to call Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg home. Amen!

[Defender]

Oh and do you think the SCOTUS justices picked by hilliary would have been better?
I'll bet you they would have NO PROBLEM hearing these cases , and they certainly wouldn't come up daisies for us
Just wait for RBG to kick the bucket.

No, Hillary's picks would not have been any better. I was just stating the facts of what happens when our Republican presidents pick the justices, we get screwed no matter what. I remember when Gov. Sununu of NH was singing the praises of the "conservative" Souter. See who was with the majority on the LBGTQ case? Oh that's right, the arch conservatives Gorsuch and Roberts. Plus we got the legality of "sanctuary cities" from those guys too. What a crock. Something is wrong somewhere.

[lager1829]

Wall St Journal op-ed today

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-se...=hp_opin_pos_3

What Second Amendment?
The Justices decline to take 10 cases that might clarify gun rights.

The Supreme Court punted*again*on the Second Amendment this week, declining to hear 10 gun-rights cases that had been teed up for possible review. At least Justice Clarence Thomas got in another sharp word about *this Court*s constitutional orphan,* as he once called it.

The Court heard arguments this term in a lawsuit over New York*s gun regulation, but in April a majority said that dispute was moot. Three Justices, in dissent, worried that the High Court*s Second Amendment precedents are being flouted by lower judges. Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged his colleagues to *address that issue soon.*

That same day the Court distributed 10 other gun-rights petitions for the Justices to consider taking. Granting a case requires four votes, so a reasonable inference was that they*d soon find another vehicle for a Second Amendment corrective. But on Monday all 10 cases were denied. Perhaps one or more of the conservative Justices feared that Chief Justice John Roberts would go wobbly, resulting in a Second Amendment defeat.

Whatever the internal dynamic, the result is a distinct lack of clarity about what the Constitution requires. One petition, in Rogers v. Grewal, was from a New Jersey man who said he *runs a large ATM business that causes him to frequently work in high-crime areas.* He sought a permit to carry a handgun and *met all of the eligibility and training requirements.* But in New Jersey, applicants have to show a *justifiable need,* meaning an *urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks.* The appeals courts are split on whether such tests to carry a gun are allowed.

The High Court*s refusal to hear the case brought a dissent from Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Kavanaugh. *It seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion,* he wrote. *But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens* Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.*

Another rejected case, Worman v. Healey, challenged a Massachusetts ban on the possession of *assault weapons,* such as the popular AR-15 rifle. The Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use, but again lower courts are divided over what this means. *The record suggests,* the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Massachusetts case, *that wielding the proscribed weapons for self-defense within the home is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack open the shell of a peanut.*

Is the Second Amendment limited to a hand gun in the home? It*s a reasonable question. If the Supreme Court is too gun-shy to answer, then Americans will watch as Justice Antonin Scalia*s landmark opinion, D.C. v. Heller(2008), is slowly hollowed out by politicians and liberal judges.

[stainless]

Repost of post #22. It explains the thinking of people like Scalia and Gorsuch.

One on the most insightful books I've recently read:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
by Neil Gorsuch