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

[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?

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

You are wrong here also and I imagine you know that.

 

[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.

Even if you're a convicted felon?

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

Read the Commerce Clause. Read the second amendment. Read the Heller ruling.

All of them will show you that yes, the government can regulate weapons.

 

[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.

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.

It's not something I really have to worry about because I do not own a gun. I think most who open carry or conceal carry are super paranoid (that doesn't mean all are) but it's not my call.

Do they have to legally comply? Yes but I still believe it's wrong. I am not a fan of restricting rights no matter what they are.

 

[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.

Read the Commerce Clause. Read the second amendment. Read the Heller ruling.

All of them will show you that yes, the government can regulate weapons.

I disagree. It happens.

 

[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.

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

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

Speech and the press as well I suppose

 

[Natural Citizen]

If congress wasn't so derelict it could get a hold on the Supreme Court and put it back in check.

Then again, a lot of people in congress are likely clueless to the fact that they can.

Congress can statutorily remove the federal judiciary from the discussion completely.

 

[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

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

 

[pknopp]

If congress wasn't so derelict it could get a hold on the Supreme Court and put it back in check.

Then again, a lot of people in congress are likely clueless to the fact that they can.

There isn't squat that the Congress can do about the Supreme Court other than pass amendments or vote on new justices.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There isn't squat that the Congress can do about the Supreme Court other than pass amendments or vote on new justices.

Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court generally “shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Constitution is a great guide to understanding roles. K?

 

[Dana7360]

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

Speech and the press as well I suppose

They already do.

The most recent is the bush boy years.

They passed regulation that takes the right of freely speaking on our airwaves and in the press away.

If anyone violates what the government determines "offensive images or vulgar language" they are heavily fined.

All because Justin Timberlake ripped Janet Jackson's top off revealing a pastie on her breast during the Super Bowl halftime show.

No one can incite a riot.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Technically, the SCOTUS did the right thing here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

Let's not forget about the 14th amendment
equal laws for all citizens

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Technically, the SCOTUS did the right thing here.

How so? it's not a states right issues since we're dealing with rights that are protected by the federal government
2 nd and 14th

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

Speech and the press as well I suppose

They already do.

The most recent is the bush boy years.

They passed regulation that takes the right of freely speaking on our airwaves and in the press away.

If anyone violates what the government determines "offensive images or vulgar language" they are heavily fined.

All because Justin Timberlake ripped Janet Jackson's top off revealing a pastie on her breast during the Super Bowl halftime show.

No one can incite a riot.

doesn't get much more liberal than that, at least you're honest.
But why you would applaud such actions is beyond me but if your going to violate the constitution ya might as well go ahead and do it full steam...once you approve of one violation you approve of all violations.

 

[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.

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

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit. If you hold one without it and your area allows it, great.

I've been to many rallies that permits were required on public land.

I specifically sated public university. If you go to use a public university you have to get permission and fill out a ton of forms. Since it's a public university you are dealing with the government. A government agency for those public universities will provide, process the forms and grant you to speak at that public university. Which they always do. It's the students who then speak up and try to prevent it which I think they also have the right to do but it's more effective to allow the speaker but no one show up. So the speaker has spent a bunch of money to speak but no one showed up to listen. That's much more effective than just telling someone you can't go there and speak.

As far as I could see from Heller the government says you have the right to protect yourself in your home and private property. That the government also has the right to regulate weapons. It's right there in the ruling. Plus it's right there in the constitution in the Commerce Clause. There are no exceptions for weapons or anyone's rights.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to overturn those laws. Whether you or I like it or not. We live in America. Our constitution says the Supreme Court is the final word. We accept it or we can move.

I've accepted a lot of rulings that I didn't agree with. That's life. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you don't.

I enjoy this win. Hopefully less people will get harmed or killed because of it.

 

[Dana7360]

There isn't squat that the Congress can do about the Supreme Court other than pass amendments or vote on new justices.

Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court generally “shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Constitution is a great guide to understanding roles. K?

As you see in his post, he did say other than pass amendments or vote on new judges.

That pretty much falls the classification of under exceptions and regulations as the congress shall make.

 

[justinacolmena]

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

That only serves as further casus belli on behalf of the people of the United States of America to depose an unconstitutional court system from the false authority of arbitrary constructivist bench legislation which the judges have usurped in defiance of our Constitution and in denial of our God-given rights.

 

[jknowgood]

"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.

When Trump wins in November and gets to replace 2 more justice's. I will enjoy watching your reaction!

 

[pknopp]

There isn't squat that the Congress can do about the Supreme Court other than pass amendments or vote on new justices.

Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court generally “shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Constitution is a great guide to understanding roles. K?

Courts decide what is Constitutional, not Congress.

FDR tried to manipulate the court. It didn't go over very well.