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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already have that right according to the second amendment.

New Jersey is full of cow shit!

 

[2aguy]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

Wrong again....... you have a 4/4 split on guns....4 left wing asshats vs. 4 real Justices...and neither side is willing to give Roberts the deciding vote on the gun cases. Trump needs to replace ginsburg and the other left wing moron if he wins re-election...which is the reason to vote for him and every lick spittle, spineless, weak Republican senator....he needs a majority to in order to replace the anti-American justices.

 

[2aguy]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already that right according to the second amendment.

For Clatyon the Constitution and Bill of Rights is hard.......

The rulings in Heller, Macdonald, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman already state that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and that carrying them is also legal...see Heller.......the lower courts are left wing, in particular the 2nd, 9th and 4th and several others....and they are simply ignoring the Supreme Court since they know it is divided and likely won't take up the defense of their rulings.

In Friedman, Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller states that the AR-15 rifle, by name, and all similar rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.......Alito, in Caetano, states in his opinion that the "Dangerous and Unusual" part of Heller does not apply to rifles and pistols.......

Clayton is a left wing hack who wouldn't understand the Bill of Rights if he studied it for 100 years.

 

[okfine]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

The courts are busy today but don't want to further cases on guns. Sounds normal.

 

[martybegan]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

The courts are busy today but don't want to further cases on guns. Sounds normal.

By not hearing it the SC has created a situation where people will continue to bring up CCW "may issue" laws as violating the 2nd amendment.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Thus 'shall not be infringed' means to NOT break, limit, undermine nor encroach on (the rights previously expressed). The word 'shall' is used to express a strong determination (in the future tense) or intention. It is a command to do or not do something.

The Supreme Court just gave states permission to encroach upon our rights...

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

Bunch of fucking cowards. Issue a ruling, that's your job.

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

 

[2aguy]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm not.....the 4 actual Justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and possibly Kavanaugh do not know it they can trust Roberts......likely they now do not trust Roberts and don't want to take the chance he will violate the Constitution...again. The 4 anti-American Justices....they don't trust Roberts either.......so we have the stalemate again, thanks to George Bush and his pick....

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

They did so because they are pussies. That's not a left/right issue, it's a "The current court is a bunch of pussies" issue, they don't want to be involved with controversy, so they just punt, on a myriad of issues, not just gun rights.

 

[Dana7360]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

This is good news.

Thank you for posting it.

I'm sure the far right crazy people will make fools of themselves and scream bloody murder.

I will enjoy watching that.

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm not.....the 4 actual Justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and possibly Kavanaugh do not know it they can trust Roberts......likely they now do not trust Roberts and don't want to take the chance he will violate the Constitution...again. The 4 anti-American Justices....they don't trust Roberts either.......so we have the stalemate again, thanks to George Bush and his pick....

That's an interesting argument........just for discussion I will note that Roberts sided with Heller.

 

[OnePercenter]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already have that right according to the second amendment.

New Jersey is full of cow shit!

Which States don't require an explanation for a CCW?

 

[Harry Dresden]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already that right according to the second amendment.

For Clatyon the Constitution and Bill of Rights is hard.......

The rulings in Heller, Macdonald, Miller, Caetano, and Friedman already state that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and that carrying them is also legal...see Heller.......the lower courts are left wing, in particular the 2nd, 9th and 4th and several others....and they are simply ignoring the Supreme Court since they know it is divided and likely won't take up the defense of their rulings.

In Friedman, Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller states that the AR-15 rifle, by name, and all similar rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.......Alito, in Caetano, states in his opinion that the "Dangerous and Unusual" part of Heller does not apply to rifles and pistols.......

Clayton is a left wing hack who wouldn't understand the Bill of Rights if he studied it for 100 years.

the only bill of rights jones likes is the one he was told to like.....and he did not even ask why should i or question what was written.....

 

[Dana7360]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

 

[2aguy]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm not.....the 4 actual Justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and possibly Kavanaugh do not know it they can trust Roberts......likely they now do not trust Roberts and don't want to take the chance he will violate the Constitution...again. The 4 anti-American Justices....they don't trust Roberts either.......so we have the stalemate again, thanks to George Bush and his pick....

That's an interesting argument........just for discussion I will note that Roberts sided with Heller.

But since then he hasn't defended the Heller decision, allowing the lower courts to just make up their own law on gun rights........

 

[Sunsettommy]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already have that right according to the second amendment.

New Jersey is full of cow shit!

Which States don't require an explanation for a CCW?

Most of them don't, your ignorance is noted.

Example:

"What Does Shall Issue Mean?

Shall Issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit. In other words, local law enforcement officials cannot deny an applicant a permit if the applicant meets all of the criteria. There are currently 41 shall-issue states, including permitless-carry states that issue permits for purposes of reciprocity (allowing residents of their state to carry in other states with favorable reciprocity). Also, there are states that may be identified as shall-issue that, in practice, operate on a may-issue basis."

LINK

bolding mine

======

Here is your education for you to catch up on concealed carry laws by the states:

LINK

Excerpt:

Summary of New Jersey Gun Laws
New Jersey is a may-issue state with concealed weapons permits issued at the local level by municipal police departments or NJ State Police. Therefore, law enforcement has discretion in determining whether or not to issue a concealed weapons permit to an applicant. Applicants must first obtain the approval of their local police chief, then must present his or her application to a superior court judge.

===

NJ is a rare MAY-ISSUE state,

===

My state:

LINK

Excerpt:

Summary of Washington Gun Laws
Washington is a shall-issue state. Licenses are issued at the local level by the sheriff or police department.

===

Most states is a SHALL-ISSUE state.

Here is the FULL link to all the states:

USCCA’S CONCEALED CARRY
RECIPROCITY MAP & GUN LAWS BY STATE

 

[2aguy]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

Yeah, it is called the 2nd Amendment.......

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon.

Moron, you don't have to justify your religious expression, or your political views or peaceably assembling to redress grievances..........you are an idiot.

 

[airplanemechanic]

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

Because the constitution is all inclusive. Which means that if it's not in the constitution the gov't has no right to do it. Since there is nowhere in that document that grants the gov't the right to regulate the sale or permit of such weapons that means the gov't doesn't have it.

The constitution doesn't state what rights the gov't DOESN'T have, it states the rights it DOES have.