The Supreme Court has been doing a very peculiar dance around an appeal from the Ninth Circuit. The appeal in question is a preliminary injunction in the case Jackson v. San Francisco on two regulations. The primary question at hand is whether San Francisco’s ban against keeping guns in the home is any more constitutional than the District of Columbia’s earlier attempt to do that. Also in question is a regulation that bans the sale of expanding ammunition . . .
As the DC Heller decision explicitly noted, explicitly noted:
In Heller, the Supreme Court considered whether the District of Columbia’s regulations, which barred the possession of handguns both inside and outside the home, and required other firearms to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device,” violated the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights.
Given that, it’s hard to see how a court could rule such a regulation to be Constitutional on the west coast. But that’s the argument that was made in the District Court ruling, and was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The rationale was that since Heller did not explicitly require handguns to be locked up at all times that they aren’t carried directly on the body of an adult, the regulation is Constitutional.
This goes directly against “Shall not be Infringed” and instead makes the court rulings a game of “How much infringement can we get away with?” As such, it is a direct challenge to Heller.
If the Supreme Court allows this ruling to stand, they are essentially telling the appellate courts that Heller didn’t really mean what they said it did. We will let you chip away at the right to bear arms until nothing meaningful is left.
The three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit is pushing the Supreme Court to see how much they can get away with. With the new Obama appointees to the Court, it may be that neither side is sure of how the vote will go. The Court has already scheduled the review of the petition for cert. five times. The next scheduled time is May 28th. David Hardy, who follows such matters, says that he has seen cases be rescheduled once, but never as many as four times.
I’ve seen that happen once on cases (maybe the Justices wanted more time to mull it over, maybe the judges couldn’t get to it in time) but never this many.
So something different appears to be going on here.
The justices should send a clear signal to the Ninth Circuit. A petition filed in the case by Paul Clement asks for a summary reversal. From reason.com:
“The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that San Francisco may venture where this Court forbade the District of Columbia to go is so patently wrong that summary reversal would be appropriate.”
It’s hard to know what is going on, but the dithering on what appears to be a clear case isn’t reassuring. If guns can be required to be locked up when not carried, why not require that they be in a retention holster? Why not require weekly inspections to insure that the locking devices are present?
If ammunition that expands can be forbidden for sale, why not limit the ammunition to only approved government-issue rounds for sale in special state ammunition stores with records of every round sold, and a requirement for the return of every spent case? We’ll be watching
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
The Gov’t (including the Supreme Court) is just made up of your neighbors who need jobs (or, in the case of the President, your neighbor from Africawahii). Some are relatively good servants, others attempt to use the position of service as one of power, and then ask for more power.
The Second Amendment is there for when these people chuck any other amendment, you get to chuck the whole thing first. You should not be required to ask your government for permission to allow you the means to overcome it should you so choose to find that necessary (your government is guaranteed to not ask you for similar permission or means) History has already proven what happens when government cannot be prevented from preventing the people that it serves from preventing it from exercising such power.
If the Supreme Ct. chucks Heller, in whole or in part, then at least get yourself a black robe and gavel and make whatever pronouncements you would care to, and you will be ‘chucking it’ no less than them.
There are a very few things (judicial) that are more screwed up than the 9th [which is a certified corked football-bat that’s been bedazzled], but it stands as one of recent history’s yardsticks.
You mean the United States Supreme Court Justices are not gods? Are you telling me that they are just as susceptible to human failings as anyone else and that those failings manifest themselves in horrific, bogus decisions? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
You should clarify that SF does NOT ban the possession of handguns in the home. What it does require is that handguns that are in the home be kept in a safe with a trigger lock. There is a big difference between requiring handguns be kept locked up, and banning handguns entirely, from a legal perspective at least.
Hmmm. This is interesting.
Let’s suppose that SCOTUS concludes that SF can’t ban you from keeping a handgun in the home. Nor can it ban you from bearing a handgun in the home. However, when it is not being borne in the home – and while it is being kept in the home – it must be in a safe or with a trigger lock. (For the sake of pursuing this discussion, let’s prescind from the gun on the nightstand scenario).
OK, so, SCOTUS reinforces Heller by saying you can “keep” a handgun (holstered) on your person in the home. I.e., a holstered gun on your person falls within the sanctity of “shall not be infringed”. A holstered gun on your person is a good and proper place to keep a gun.
Now, step across your threshold and onto the street. You are now “bearing” a holstered gun on your person. As you cross your lawn you are outside your home and within the “curtilage” of your home. Were you to draw and fire your gun the bullets would travel into the “public square” beyond your property. As you step off your property and into the street, what changes?
Without “infringing” where does the state’s authority to regulate carrying of a holstered gun begin?
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the state’s authority to regulate carrying of a gun is well established within the 4 walls of a court room. Now, then, in the long walk from one’s living room to a court room, where does the state’s power to regulate arms-bearing emerge?
– as you cross the threshold of your home?
– as you step from the curtilage of your home onto the public street?
– as you enter the court house?
– as you enter the court room?
It’s doubtful that SCOTUS will confine your liberty to carry to within your home. The curtilage will certainly be protected as would all your own property. All we need now establish is that there is no rational basis to distinguish curtilage/private-property from the adjacent street. I.e., that “the right” to “bear arms” in a holster about your person is not confined to the home, curtilage or private property.
It’s difficult to imagine what a decision or the dicta in the SF might say; it might say just about anything. Included within “just about anything” might include remarks quite tangential to “keeping” a gun about one’s person in one’s home. It might mention something about keeping it in a hotel or in a car or somewhere else, when it is about one’s person and in a holster. All the decision or dicta need speak to is the stepping across the boundary line of one’s property. That could spell the death warrant for May-Issue.
Just in case everyone has forgotten – Heller did not replace the 2nd amendment. It’s typical they would of course continue to ignore the 2nd and work on the manipulations of interpretations of the Heller decision, all the while continuing to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t actually exist – since the Heller decision has somehow amazingly determined what the 2nd amendment really means (rather than what it literally means).
If the decision was single handedly left to these people then the 2nd amendment means you have the right to keep a single – single shot 22lr in your home, and the right to bear it only to a nearby gun range.
Our rights are razor thin-one evil(or more evil) idiot on the supremes would do it…good luck with the millions who would NOT comply.
How many POTG will turn a blind eye when they have knowledge of a felon in possession of a firearm? How many POTG will sell a firearm to a stranger without demanding to see identification first? How many POTG will turn a blind eye or ear when they see or hear someone in the next holler practicing with fully automatic fire?
@john–“How many POTG will turn a blind eye when they have knowledge of a felon in possession of a firearm?”
It is not my position to tell another person they cannot defend their own life, but if they try to take mine it is as easy as saying”Lord make me faster than my enemy and my aim truer, and if you are to call me home, let me die in a pile of brass” Some people are stupid all the time and are not trust worthy but some people are only stupid once, and I trust those men to defend my life if needed.
“How many POTG will sell a firearm to a stranger without demanding to see identification first?”
Why do I need identification for a private sale of a firearm between to American Citizens. I don’t associate with lesser men who would harm innocents, since those we surround ourselves with say a lot of a man’s character.
” How many POTG will turn a blind eye or ear when they see or hear someone in the next holler practicing with fully automatic fire?”
Firing a really excellent but heavy weapon is a fun time, not government business.
As a POTG I would not call the police on a rancher or farmer making a stock dam with explosives either, because they are taking care of their own pursuits that make them happy, called work.
Old saying of Loose lips empty clips comes to mind when some feel it is necessary to infringe upon another citizen’s constitutional rights, that can’t be taken away while they are living United States Citizens
You know exactly what I’m talking about and you choose to live by it. I thank you for being a true American patriot.
Sure but when RF asks should felons have gun rights restored a whole lot of commenters want every right restored. It’s not cut and dryed.
You made my point. Until enough people, especially POTG, are willing to set aside their personal biases and act in accordance with real, bonafide individual Liberty, no concerted, substantial effort to resist unconscionable laws will persist. The people with whom I surround myself understand that in order to live free, they must be willing to allow others to do so. It is out of such principled groups that real change will manifest. IMHO, it was the norm rather than the exception at one time in this great nation’s history.
If they are still likely to be violent, then they should still be in jail.
If they have paid their debt to society, then the slate is wiped clean. Vote, get a good job, etc. Less likely for them to be back in jail if they have the same opportunities and advantages a non-criminal has.
The well-intentioned, principled, detractors of felon-in-posession do the greatest disservice to the cause of gun-rights. Correct principles can be the greatest enemies of progress toward the desired end.
Suppose, arguendo, that we built the prisons to hold violent criminals for as long as necessary to reduce substantially their propensity to commit more violent crimes. Then, it would arguably make sense to say that – when released – these felons could be trusted to use guns only for self-defense. The problem is that taxpayers are unlikely to build anywhere near enough prisons nor to tolerate long sentences. Unless and until these conditions for extensive incarceration change, those same taxpayers will remain unwilling to tolerate released violent criminals carrying guns.
We PotG ought to rest our crime-with-guns program on felon-in-posession; a position incompatible with broad restoration of 2A rights.
Instead of taking a principled position about restoring 2A rights to all released felons what we ought to be doing is working for the restoration of funding to the DoJ program to hear appeals. The voters will accept that the principle of restoring rights based on individual circumstances is already a part of the law. It will seem incongruous that this program has been defunded such that it doesn’t operate at all.
We should also be working on much more sympathetic cases such as vets and others who have been stripped of their 2A rights due to some transitory mental health issue which was wrongly established or which is no longer justified by the patient’s subsequent normal behavior.
Mark N. +1000
I would be racing over to see if I could get some trigger time! I would NOT ask to see any tax stamps.
Note: John’s use of the word “holler” means over the next hill … the next valley if you will.
Felon: Dunno, I don’t go around asking everyone with a gun if they are a felon. And even if I did, chances are they would respond with, “None of your business.” And they would be right.
I don’t sell guns, so…
Fully auto: Damn that’s nice. Wish I could get one…
Too many folks are too busy worrying about what other folks are doing, and should probably go back to minding their OWN back yard.
Unfortunately, I run into alot of gun owners who claim to support individual rights but take a stance opposite of yours.
Unless someone is committing a REAL crime (life, limb, or property), I mind my own business.
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the band plays on…
The other Justices don’t trust Kennedy, who voted with the majority in Heller and McDonald. He’s the weak sister, and could turn — or he might toughen up. Nobody knows, and the other eight Justices do not seem inclined to put Kennedy to the test.
Right off the bat the opinion shows failure to comprehend the English language: if something _limits_, it automatically infringes. That should have been the end of the matter there.
Even assuming your premise is true that limits = infringement (and even as a gun rights support I recognize that as simply false), it doesn’t follow immediately that a law that requires a handgun be locked up when not in one’s control (either on his person, or close enough that a reasonable control is exercised) even limits your ability to keep and bear arms. By itself, such a law has no bearing on the “bear” part and does not itself limit the “keep” part either.
One has to present an actual argument and stop being so blatantly ideological as to assume that only the paranoid motives attributed to the other side by your own are the actual reasons people support the thing you oppose.
One needs to show how such a requirement “limits” the right as enumerated.
Now the expanding ammo law in SF is unconstitutionally vague, banning ammo no longer manufactured and ammo with “identical characteristics” which the PD takes to mean similar rather than identical…
Even more amazing is how such a law stands when there is state preemption. As a final note, this lecturing about the English language… well it seems petty when the article itself is so badly written.
“The rationale was that since Heller did not explicitly require handguns to be locked up at all times that they aren’t carried directly on the body of an adult, the regulation is Constitutional.”
I think he means the law/ordinance, not Heller there.
The difficulty, here, lies in the intrusion into the sanctity of the home.
Let’s imagine the colonial era Boston ordinance forbidding carrying loaded guns into buildings. Suppose arms were racked outside buildings where anyone might walk up and take one. Perhaps Boston could require that the arms be locked as a public safety measure. In such a context, your argument would make sense.
Self-contained cartridges have superseded black-powder muzzle-loaders. So, we no longer need concern ourselves over the safety of firefighters. We can bring loaded arms indoors. Now, San Francisco wants to mandate locked storage. But, this is inside the home (or business or possibly elsewhere).
SF would prohibit me from keeping my gun on my nightstand; is that so? I have no children at home. My house is alarmed. I’ve made additional provisions to strengthen my perimeter. This ordnance infringes with my right to keep my gun in my home in a state ready to oppose an invasion. This, they cannot do under Heller.
Let’s consider an intermediary case. In rural precincts its common to see pickup trucks with gun racks openly stocked and parked on town streets. I’ve never heard of a report where these practices have caused a problem. Even so, I could imagine that SF would be concerned if a gun owner left his gun openly displayed on the car seat of an unlocked car while he ran into a convenience store. Could your argument be sustained in such a context? Perhaps so. A car parked in a public place is not the sanctuary as the owner’s home-castle. The gun is openly visible. Even if the car is locked, a smash-&-grab is clearly feasible.
Given Weingarten’s failure to correctly report on Texas gun laws, I have to take this article with a huge grain of salt.
You are correct to do so, as there are a number of significant errors in his article. First, the San Francisco ordinance is not, as stated in the second sentence, “ban against keeping of firearms in the home.” Rather, and as he more correctly states later, requires that guns not in one’s immediate possession be locked up and unloaded. (I’m not saying that this is a valid ordinance, just that it is not correctly characterized.) Also, although he correctly states that the ordinance bans the sale of expanding ammunition, he should also have noted that it does not ban the possession of such ammo or its purchase outside the city limits. As it is, there is only one gun store in SF, and the City massively restricts the amount of ammo it can keep on hand (the City has been unsuccessfully trying to force it close for years.) And maybe Dean’s source hasn’t seen a case relisted four times, but SCOTUS Blog has seen cases relisted far more times than that, as many as seventeen, if I recall correctly. Sometimes relisting is because there is no consensus, or one justice wishes to dissent from a denial of cert in a written opinion, or because there will be a summary reversal with opinion that needs to be written. It is useless to speculate on anything but that the case has the Court’s attention.
Should the Court take the case? Yes. The decision is an obvious attempt to narrow the breadth of the Heller opinion, and could be deemed a direct challenge to the Court. Further, absent state pre-emption of gun laws (California has some, but it is a murky area), allowing this ordinance to stand will cause anit-gun jurisdictions (like D.C. and Chicago) to adopt similar measures, and we will be right back where we were before Heller.
The article at Gun Watch is a bit more verbose and precise. Interesting information on the number of relistings.
Glad you are feeling better, Dean! Great article, especially the link to Damon Root, at Reason. I
See my post below dwbs for more info at Scotusblog, on relists. Mr Hardy is opining based on relist signaling that is a couple years old. John Elmond at Scotusblog has more details on “why more relists now”, that is largely admin related, and within his articles, a couple of links to other well-informed court watchers, on same.
I see you are following mdshooters. I’ve found user name “Esqappellate” to provide most useful insider info on SCOTUS and the CAs.
Holy cow … that decision is maddening. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has empowered government to “regulate” pretty much anything in the home that someone could misuse and cause harm. Under their ruling, San Francisco could mandate that matches, knives, common household cleaners (e.g. poisons), ropes, sheets, curtains, scarves, string, chains, wire, cables, batteries, and medicines be stored in locked containers unless the homeowner was carrying them on their person.
The SAF should campaign for all of those. Let’s see how the leftists truly like government intrusion when it affects them also.
Is it *possible* SCOTUS could tie in public carry rights in that decision?
No. The issue of carry outside the home is not raised by the ordinance, the pleadings, or the decision by the trial court or the Court of Appeals. Therefore it cannot be considered. It is called “outside the scope of he pleadings.”
maybe. One semi-remote possibility they could discuss is “in the home” carry, leaving outside carry for another day. But, anything that provides some clarity on “bear” might be good.
I’d be more interested in clarity on “keep”… It would be a very useful way to throw out NFA and “assault weapon” bans.
Good point on “keep”.
The IL case of a ban on keeping an “assault weapon” against a municipal ordnance; the MD case on “assault weapons” is another case.
The arguments for the AR-15 model as an excellent selection for home defense bring this model under Heller. The common-use rationale (with which I do NOT agree) brings this model under Heller. Once these are established we can move on to NFA.
Having a suppressor on a home-defense gun is an important aid to hearing safety and operational effectiveness if gunfire occurs in a home invasion. NFA does not outright prohibit suppressors; it merely levies a tax and paperwork requirement. Do these provisions constitute an “infringement” as contemplated by the 2A? That’s key. The ATF seems more than willing to sell tax stamps to anyone possessed of his 2A rights. The processing delay has dropped from a year (at most) to a few months; and, this could easily be improved. Especially if Class-3 FFLs could sell stamps after a NICS check and paperwork completion. Then, we have the $200 tax.
Suppose that a suppressor might cost $800 such that the $200/$800 = .25. That’s about double the excise tax on non-NFA guns and ammo. Is double an “infringement”? Looks to me like increased sales volume will lead to economies of scale such that suppressors might drop in price to $600, $400, $200 whereupon $200/$200 = 1.00; i.e., a restoration of the 100% tax rate. Would even a 100% tax constitute an “infringement” as a judicial matter?
Next, only SBSs and SBRs in the NFA seem likely candidates. These, like “assault weapons” would enjoy substantial efficacy for home defense. That’s good. Unlike “assault weapons” they aren’t in “common use”. In any case, we are probably looking at a price-point of about $400 so $200/$400 = .50; i.e., would a 50% tax rate constitute an “infringement”.
I really can’t be optimistic about using Heller to dilute the NFA. I can be optimistic that Heller’s defense of home & hearth and common use can be used to attack the “assault weapons” bans and the magazine capacity bans. Bear in mind that these are outright bans (possibly with grandfather clauses and registration); they are not merely taxes. Nor, typically, are they simple registrations (i.e., they would permit you to have all the cosmetic features you might like if you register them.)
A successful challenge of the assault weapons ban (or magazine capacity limits) would likely be followed by new attempts that would allow such evil weapons provided they are registered and taxed. We know how to deal with these approaches. I own exactly 1 lower receiver and 1 standard capacity magazine that I could register. When confiscation comes, they get that 1 lower receiver and 1 standard capacity magazine. I’ll keep my flash suppressor, bayonet mount, pistol grip and – it goes without saying – my “thing that goes up” (when my wife comes in the room).
Way I see it-the high court ruled on Heller because they agreed an explicit handgun ban at home was a bridge too far and figured incorporating the RKBA at home was as far as things would progress .Understand even Australia permits weapons ownership at home, so upholding that as an exercise of the RKBA isnt really as radical as it may seem.
They didn’t want gun control laws ranging from concealed carry to longstanding AWBs to be challenged and reduced on the scale theyve seen, however-and now they’re trying to unring the bell.
Even though I admittedly don’t know that with certainty, most likely in Australia you cannot keep a loaded and ready-to-use gun inside your home; it likely has to be unloaded and safely stored somehow. One of the major aspects of Heller was not simply allowing the ownership of handguns in DC, but also providing for the ability to keep one in a state suitable for immediate self-defense.
So, yes, there is likely a big difference there.
That’s absolutely insane. What is the point of Heller if it only protects the right to a single government approved gun that costs $1000 in permits and licenses to own and if your neighbor complains then it gets taken away? If an AWB or may issue is not ruled unconstitutional on it’s face, then in my opinion there is no existing second amendment right that the courts recognize. No other right would get such treatment. Not even the 4th or 5th amendment! And that’s saying a lot!
Ok. First off restricting one type of ammo is not the end of freedom. The court could say banning a single type of ammo is not a big infringement when so many other types of ammo are available. Also the court MAY say that hollow points , being understood as banned under the Geneva convention and thus not in common use by US infantry, can be banned. I think considering US police agencies use them this would not fly, same with select fire rifles by the way.
My guess is the court is waiting to deal with DC ‘s case is its sent there. But they may send a summary judgement, if they can do that just on the storage issue.
The ordinance does not ban HP ammo. It bans its sale (in the one and only gun store in town or via mail order). It does not ban the possession or use of such ammo. Los Angeles also has an ordinance restricting ammo sales, and most on-line sellers will not ship to LA County.
If it makes it essentially unavailable without going through an unreasonable amount of effort, then it’s the same as a ban.
I do agree with you Sian. But this is CA. What do you consider unreasonable effort? I drove several cities away and crossed the bay monday to have lunch. People commute for hours here to get to their jobs.
Fortunately for me, where I live has no mail order restrictions. And a wal mart is just 20 minutes away.
How is banning the sale of hollowpoint ammunition in San Francisco any more permissible than a ban on the sale of modems and computers in San Francisco — justified as reducing the ability of terrorists to create and publish recruiting messages and videos on the Internet? Would that be okay since people can drive outside of San Francisco to purchase modems and computers and then bring them back into San Francisco?
The U.S. Supreme Court has to reject this ruling for the simple fact that it demonstrates utter contempt for the human dignity of the good people who live in San Francisco.
And then we have this gem from the decision,
Translation: hollowpoint bullets are no more deadly nor capable of stopping an attacker than full metal jacket bullets.
Translation: hollowpoint bullets are more deadly and capable of stopping an attacker than full metal jacket bullets.
The Ninth Circuit Court contradicts its own ruling within its ruling. This is utter garbage.
Tell me, what kind of bullets do San Francisco police use?
Wait I know that. Winchester Ranger and Federal HST. Hollowpoints.
It wouldn’t be leftism if it wasn’t contradictory.
“. . . Paul Clement asks for a summary reversal . . . ”
I take it that SCOTUS has 3 choices:
– let the 9th’s decision stand
– summarily reverse the 9th’s decision
– hear the case
If SCOTUS left the 9th’s decision stand it would throw Constitutional law based on Heller and McDonald into chaos. The lower courts and the People would have no clue what the 2A means insofar as what SCOTUS might rule. I don’t see this as viable.
The easy thing for SCOTUS to do is to summarily reverse. That would send a signal to the circuits that they can’t play too cute by half with SCOTUS’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. They have to have some meat in their opinions.
The hard thing for SCOTUS to do is to hear the case. I can’t really see Kennedy deciding that the 9th can play too cute by half by saying it’s either in your holster or your safe. This may be SCOTUS’s opportunity to send a message to the Circuits that they have to take their responsibilities under Heller and McDonald seriously. It may hint at what the 9th must do in Peruta.
Per Esqappellate at mdshooters, SCOTUS doesnt much like lower courts directly flouting its settled law, and the customary number of Justices for reversal is 6.
IANAL, but based on what I’ve read who are, and Damon Roots article at Reason, linked in Deans article above, I’d like to believe this would be a unanimous reversal, but then its gun law, and the issues are slightly different.
Given that, I’m hoping that Kennedy and Kagan (or any two others) along with the Heller 4 will reverse, if not decided already, and order issuance is only waiting on dissent to be written.
“David Hardy, who follows such matters, says that he has seen cases be rescheduled once, but never as many as four times.”
Well, no, there are in fact lots of cases that get rescheduled multiple times (see: relist watch as Scotusblog). Such dithering (relisting) is much more common since last year when there were cases SCT took but then dismissed as improvidently granted. They are relisting cases someone has taken an interest in for further, deeper, review. This has nada to do with Kennedy.
The more times this gets rescheduled, the better the odds for a summary reversal with an opinion. YES!
But- we could also be looking at a denial with an dissenting opinion. NO! That would be really really bad.
There is a small possibility this gets re-listed multiple times then denied without an opinion (that has happened too). Bad, but not as bad as denial with a dissent from denial. It means someone was interested but maybe this turned out to be a bad vehicle.
oh- and the only question before the court is the safe storage component of the law, not the ammo.
+1, dwb is correct. Mr Hardy is making inferences based on old relist data and thinking.
Read Scotusblog, and writer John Elwood on relists, and why so many in last two years.
http://www.scotusblog.com/author/john-elwood/page/4/
If one is interested in being first to know, and learn some more interesting insider type info on how Scotus works, you can follow along with the Scotusblog live blog, on Orders and Opinions from the weekly conference, opened and announced at 0930EST, here:
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_1_2015
Four conferences to go after Mondays, and with something like 22 cases heard, but not yet announced, and 9 relists that could be granted cert- (1 in a 100 is the normal statistic), its likely we will have more announcements mid week, in addition to the normal Monday session, and we should get an answer on Jackson before end of term- the big cases decisions are traditionally held to then, the Obamacare, gay rights, immigration cases before SCOTUS now.
My guess (hope) on Jackson is for a summary reversal, with dissent in writing that is holding up the issue.
If that comes out before June 16th orals for Peruta, that would make the orals even MORE interesting…
and depending on the explanation in the decision, might be construed as “sending a signal to the 9th”.
Someone should remake the old Indian crying over litter and pollution commercial, except with Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin crying over what has become of this country. Sad.
How about The Forgotten Man by McNaughton?
http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/TheForgottenMan.html
When the courts rule for public lawful self defense they’ll effectively end a large majority of employees in the executive & judicial system.
There are only two results of may issue. Criminals will die from a lawful self defender (LSD) OR criminal behavior is modified because his friends are dying from LSD’ers.
Within ONE generation the genetic pools of criminals will be removed and overall cost of incarceration, courts, police and lawyers will be reduced.
+1
Agree, if you meant ‘shall issue.’
Two words:
Spontaneous Mutations.
This is why we will never “eradicate” anything.
Interesting bit of info about one of the 9th Court justices:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/05/judge-who-freed-the-jihadist-texas-shooter-named-as-potential-supreme-court-nominee-linked-to-la-raza/
I may not have a clue here as to what is really going on here with the various courts.
But I do feel for what this is worth.
The Supreme Court is a bunch of Chcken sh$%^ts.
They know that they should say, the 2nd means a guns a gun let the people have them.
Its what the founding fathers wanted period.
That would be too dammed easy though. You cant please everyone and they are pleasing no one.
Permits for a right?? BS. In common use also BS.
Im glad, Im on the short end of the stick here. This country is so far in the crapper its time is up and done for.
This bunch of Old men and lying before congress at their approval hearings women are making me sick and sad to be an American.
They just keep putting off the obvious, They are wrong and wont ever admit it.
We need 9 Scalia’s and not one Roberts amongst them.
Term limits for the Courts………………….
Activists like Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg should never be allowed to sit on the SCOTUS.
2 out of the 3 are on the record lying to congress. What ever happened to “as its already decided law??
But I don’t like it so Im voting against it every chance I get after Im approved. Same deal with our new head of the DOJ Holder.2 She is going to be fun. Freggin republicans that voted for her confirmation should get tossed out in 2016 on their collective butts.
Stop giving them ideas!
The SCOTUS is just as much a threat to individual liberty as a king or emperor. It’s a collection of political activists who have the power to reshape Constitutional rights. Having a majority means you have complete control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Criticism
(Emphasis mine.)
See also: http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
Kinda makes one reconsider the label of a “free nation” when we’re never more than several individual opinions away from tyranny. Is living under constant threat truly freedom?
Aye. Jefferson underestimated Marshall and, IMHO, didn’t give the case the attention it ought to have had. The rot started nearly from the beginning. There can be no lasting Liberty the way that things are presently done. We will slip quietly under the boot of tyranny, there will be a violent revolution, or government will spontaneously come to its senses. The latter most is as likely as pigs growing wings and flying on their own so, in my estimation, America will revolt or it will be lost.
Comments are closed.