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

[Daryl Hunt]

The Heller decision said that we can continue to regulate guns. What is so hard to understand about that?

It introduced the term "Reasonable" which all courts have stayed true to since. I can't help it the rtwinggunnutters aren'tt "Reasonable".

 

[OldLady]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

Sounds to me (from what 2AGuy listed) that they've already said what they had to say on the matter. Oh well.

 

[OldLady]

The Heller decision said that we can continue to regulate guns. What is so hard to understand about that?

The way I read Heller, one can own a gun to defend his home. I didn't read that they overturned D.C.'s right to ban guns from certain public spaces. So one can legally own a gun and store it in his home anyway he likes. It is for self protection. However, it didn't give permission for people to walk out their front door with one, necessarily.
Did I get that right?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Heller decision said that we can continue to regulate guns. What is so hard to understand about that?

The way I read Heller, one can own a gun to defend his home. I didn't read that they overturned D.C.'s right to ban guns from certain public spaces. So one can legally own a gun and store it in his home anyway he likes. It is for self protection. However, it didn't give permission for people to walk out their front door with one, necessarily.
Did I get that right?

Not quite, In DC, you also have to be licensed to own that handgun and have that handgun registered. The problem stemmed from DC making it almost impossible to the licensing and registration. SC ruled that DC had to have "Reasonable" licensing and registration. And you are right, your rights end at your property.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Why?

You want to have to explain to the government why you feel you need to freely speak?

The issue is CCW. Please try and focus. Again, why shouldn't a State regulate a CCW permit?

I answered your question. You should not have to explain to anyone why you want to exercise your rights.

Even if you're a convicted felon?

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

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.

But then again, you're an idiot.

Someone riddle me this

How can a person scream "requiring ID to vote disenfranchises people" and then argue that it's perfectly acceptable to require background checks (which require state

 

[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.

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.

Actually, I’d like the Court to grant cert to the ‘shall issue’ vs. ‘may issue’ NJ case.

If a resident of a state has satisfied his state’s requirements to carry a concealed firearm, he should be allowed to do so, and be issued a license accordingly – and not be required to provide further ‘justification’ to be issued a license.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

They’re not.

They're regulating firearms.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed: the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ it’s subject to regulations and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[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.

Don't you just hate it when all roads lead back to Heller V DC?

I don't necessarily believe it does.

 

[pknopp]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Why?

You want to have to explain to the government why you feel you need to freely speak?

The issue is CCW. Please try and focus. Again, why shouldn't a State regulate a CCW permit?

I answered your question. You should not have to explain to anyone why you want to exercise your rights.

Even if you're a convicted felon?

The Constitution also noted when rights can be restricted. That isn't what is in question here.

 

[westwall]

"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.

Clayton is the very definition of pseudo intellectual. He has never had an original thought in his life.

The SCOTUS needs four more years of Trump to set it back to level.

 

[westwall]

Since the new radical democrat party has decided to join the anarchist calls to disband the police, there's been $1.8M in new gun sales.

Democrats are always the best sales people for gun sales.

Putin is proud of you.

You would know, you're a pootin putz

 

[pknopp]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

They’re not.

They're regulating firearms.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed: the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ it’s subject to regulations and restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

No, Heller stated it wasn't necessarily not restrictive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Heller decision said that we can continue to regulate guns. What is so hard to understand about that?

…consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The Supreme Court hasn’t heard a significant Second Amendment case since 2010, when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, invalidating a Chicago handgun ban.

Since then the case law has been determined by Federal district and appellate courts – such as upholding as Constitutional magazine capacity restrictions, UBCs, and AWBs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Why?

You want to have to explain to the government why you feel you need to freely speak?

The issue is CCW. Please try and focus. Again, why shouldn't a State regulate a CCW permit?

Regulating the issuance of a CWL is fine – the state has the authority to establish qualifications and standards, collect fees to defray expenses, and to refuse to issue a license to a prohibited person.

But when the qualifications and standards are realized, and fees paid, the license should be issued absent any further subjective justification.

 

[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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't incite a riot. A person has to jump through a ton of hoops to get an abortion in some states and even contraceptives even though it's been ruled a right.

The states have the right to regulate commerce. Check out the commerce clause of the constitution. It's one simple sentence with no exceptions for weapons.

What the states and supreme court have done in this situation was constitutional and correct.

 

[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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Why?

You want to have to explain to the government why you feel you need to freely speak?

A person has to get a permit to speak freely if they're holding a rally or speak at a public university.

They have to fill out forms and most certainly have to tell them why they are speaking.

Telling the government why you're doing something isn't a violation of your rights. Preventing you from speaking freely within our laws is a violation of your rights.



Asking a question isn't taking your weapons from you no matter how much you want to say it is.

 

[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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Why?

You want to have to explain to the government why you feel you need to freely speak?

The issue is CCW. Please try and focus. Again, why shouldn't a State regulate a CCW permit?

I answered your question. You should not have to explain to anyone why you want to exercise your rights.

Then don't live in New Jersey.

It's as simple as that.

And yes there are situations where a person has to explain why they are exercising their rights. No one has any problem with that.

 

[pknopp]

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.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Don't you just hate it when all roads lead back to Heller V DC?

I don't necessarily believe it does.

But you do have to follow the law or face the legal consequences.

The courts don't care if you disagree with or don't believe in the law.

If you break the law you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and find yourself in prison losing your right to own a weapon for the rest of your life.

Seems a lot to lose just because you don't agree or believe in the law.