Gun cases at the supreme court
Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Marylands ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the states ban on the open carrying of guns in public.
Having the supreme court on our side doesn’t really seem to be helping.
November 27th, 2017 at 6:45 pm
Well, we need one more pro gun vote on SCOTUS. Roberts, Kennedy and the libs won’t vote to take up a gun bill. It would be nice if Roberts were to “retire” (Obamacare is a “tax”, according to Roberts) and when the old woman goes then we should have 4 RELIABLE votes and “may issue” states and semi-auto bans will be a thing of the past.
November 27th, 2017 at 7:06 pm
I haven’t seen any reason to believe that Gorsuch will be any good, either.
November 27th, 2017 at 7:09 pm
It take four justices to grant certiorari.
The court has been loath to take up any more 2A cases since McDonald.
Several angles on this current decision present themselves for speculation, because speculation is all we’ll ever get, SCOTUS never says who voted how.
1, Roberts and Kennedy couldn’t be bothered to join Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch as they are of the bunch of elitists who really don’t like the idea of all these guns in the hands of us ‘Riff-Raff’.
2, Roberts and Kennedy were cajoled/bribed/blackmailed to vote against cert because the 4 proggies on the court fear further pro-2A decisions.
3, The Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch team privately queried Roberts and Kennedy and figured out that one or both were inclined to decide with the proggies and figured that discretion was the better part of valor.
Take your pick.
Only if the swing voter Kennedy and the Dark Lord of the Sith Ruth Vader Ginsburg (or any one of the other proggies) will either retire or go into vapor lock before President Trump leaves office, will we have a chance for a case to be heard that can be used to deal with these anti-gun laws.
November 27th, 2017 at 8:52 pm
My cynical view is that judges and justices very, very rarely pay attention to the plain text of the Constitution. “Supreme Court on our side” is really more wishful thinking than reality, though it has a paper thin veneer of semblance of truth to it.
November 27th, 2017 at 10:23 pm
It must be a ruling elite attitude. Otherwise, by an objective reading of the Constitution, it’s quite clear that the government has NO delegated powers for any gun laws pertaining to the People. It only has power over “such part of them”, the militia, EMPLOYED in the government’s service.(Article I, Section 8.15-16) And without delegated power, the government may do NOTHING. (10th Amendment) The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment were “added clauses” to reiterate the invioable rights of the People and to prevent “abuses and usurpations” by the government, namely acting without DELEGATED POWER!!
November 27th, 2017 at 10:32 pm
The Maryland case involves clear usurpation of Constitutional rights and should have been accepted.
But in my state of FL the method for making OC not illegal is the same as what made it illegal, statutory.
November 27th, 2017 at 10:35 pm
The Supreme Court might best let things in the gun rights category rot publicly for a while longer before taking a case. Every self-defense use of firearms is another example of the reason why self defense is an individual, fundamental right protected by 2nd. And every mass shooting in a gun free zone is an example of failed gun control laws. The public attitude continues to shift in favor of less infringement on gun rights.
The right to bear arms publicly hasn’t been adjudicated at the Supreme Court level yet, really, and if you want a combination of Miller’s “militia utility” reasoning and Scalia’s “in common use” dicta to succeed in killing all semiauto bans & magazine capacity limits, along with a Heller/McDonald respect for bearing arms in public, you’re gonna have to wait a while.
November 28th, 2017 at 10:50 am
I tend to think that the SCOTUS is “gun shy” because right now, it’s pretty balanced. There are the four generally pro-gun justices, and the four generally anti-gun justices, and Kennedy.
Neither side wants to “risk it”. Say they took this case, and Kennedy says “this is just a bit too far, I can’t side with the pro-gun guys on this one”. Then you lose AR/AK/standard round magazines.
Or, from the other side, if they took it and Kennedy says “Hey, it’s supposed to protect military style weapons, that’s its intent, so I’m voting with the pro-gun side”. Then the other side pretty much has lost all possibility of regulation, and several states and larger cities would have to roll back some of their signature gun laws (my own state included).
It’s a coin flip on where Kennedy is going to come down on it, and I don’t think either side is willing to flip that coin right now. Once one side or the other gets another justice in their pocket, then I’d expect to see the SCOTUS be willing to take gun cases again.
November 28th, 2017 at 12:16 pm
Yes, Kennedy is a big problem. I don’t understand why anyone respects him. The lefty justices at least have convictions. They are treasonous convictions and they all stand guilty of perjuring their oath of office, but they do have that. Kennedy has no principles whatsoever, and as far as I can see, never did.
November 30th, 2017 at 7:40 pm
@mikee, SCOTUS implicitly addressed the RKBA in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney, in the majority opinion, kept black people as non-persons and subject to legal slavery lest “they be able to go armed everywhere they went”. By the way, disarming people and keeping them that way has been a chief aspect of slavery down through history.