TexasCHLforum.com

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Keep waiting: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/todays-orders-65/

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Sorry for old news, that got mixed up in the SCOTUSblog for today with other cases.

ETA: There was a reason it got mixed up with today's news. They're not hearing it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/26/us ... a-law.html

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

Last time I checked, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question: who decides whether or not a case will be heard? Do the justices vote on that decision, or is it made at some administrative level? And if the justices voted on it, did that vote include Gorshuch or not?

Pretty sure justices vote, but I am not sure. I also am not sure if Gorsuch voted since this was brought to the court before he was seated. I'm disappointed no matter what though.

It will come up again, and again, and again until they settle it.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Keep waiting: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/todays-orders-65/

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Sorry for old news, that got mixed up in the SCOTUSblog for today with other cases.

ETA: There was a reason it got mixed up with today's news. They're not hearing it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/26/us ... a-law.html

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

Last time I checked, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Peruta is asking the courts to put that option back on the table in CA and everywhere else it has been denied, and basically make “shall issue” the law of the land.

If the court takes up this case, we’ll find out how its newest member will really rule on 2A issues. Ultimately, this could be the case that fills in some of the many gaps left by the Heller decision. If this passes, the urgency behind the national reciprocity act will ratchet down a bit more, because citizens in anti-gun states will finally be able to exercise their constitutional rights.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

OldAg wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Given Trump's promise to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices, and given that the democrats were stupid enough to invoke the nuclear option back when they had control, and give that it is still invoked (has never been rolled back), and given a republican majority in Congress, I'd say that it looks good for this case when it gets in front of SCOTUS.

Does anyone know for sure that the nuclear option is invoked for SCOTUS appointees? My understanding is that it has been invoked for cabinet positions and all of the federal judge appointments except Supreme Court. SCOTUS still requires 60 votes to end debate and then the Senate can vote to confirm.

I believe you are correct.

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

rotor wrote:Maybe I don't understand something. This is California law that was just upheld. We have screwy things in Texas law too. I understand the need to keep Clinton out of office. California legislature voted this in. California population voted their legislators in. They need to live with it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?

Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

Chas.