SCOTUS won't hear California carry case, leaving 9th Circ. decision intact

[Ringworm]

They all failed reading 101.

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.

they don't care. So neither should we...

 

[Coyote33]

I say this is every thread. SCOTUS will never hear another major gun case. Ever. They cannot reconcile previous decisions. They will let a civil war take place before they will affirm 2A and throw out AWBs or other laws

You might be wrong here.

On NRA TV with Cam and Co. they were talking about how bad this case was. They said it was actually a good thing that this particular one got denied cert. Maybe Weng vs Evans (now new commish) will be the one to go. I think it is a far better case that covers selectivity of LTC restrictions.

What was the outcome of this?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This case should have been brought on the sole issue of equal treatment under the law so that the courts would not have a chance to iron down "in the home only".

 

[Roof gunner]

So that would be about 1%. Wow. I had no idea that it was that low.

Bob

Discouraging

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Cases tend to be avoided when legal reasoning would lead to a decision inconsistent with the desired public policy. This case, if successful, would have let to unimportant and unconnected people getting unrestricted carry permits in places like NYC and LA, and the court was not going to risk upsetting that apple cart.

 

[weekendracer]

Hold on here...

CA Sheriff says no permits for little people but hands them out to family and friends.
Little people sue in district court.
District court says Sheriff is right and 2A doesn't extend outside home
Little people appeal to 9th circuit court of appeals.
New Sheriff in town and one of the plaintiffs now has his permit and the other never reapplied.
Court of appeals dismisses case since one plaintiff has his permit and the other never tried again...
Someone runs it up to the SCOTUS who decided not to touch the case with one remaining plaintiff who won't reapply under the new Sheriff.

From what I have seen watching other cases like this, there is no way the SCOTUS was going to touch it. Bad case that would collapse as soon as someone asked the plaintiff if they tried to apply again, or as soon as the new Sheriff handed the plaintiff a permit.

Better to walk away from some cases than risk a bad decision at the SCOTUS level.

We won't be havin' none of your logic in this hysteria thread.