• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Supreme Court decides not to hear big gun-rights cases, dealing blow to Second Amendment activists

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,230
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
That's it folks... we're officially f***ed! [angry]


The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear appeals of a slew of cases involving gun laws, dealing a blow to Second Amendment activists who seek to expand the rights of gun owners.

In an order released Monday morning, the court denied petitions for appeals of 10 cases.

The action comes just weeks after the justices declined to issue a substantive opinion in its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade. In that case, over a since-repealed New York City handgun regulation, the court said the controversy was no longer active because the measure had been amended by the city.

But several of the court's conservatives, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote that they would still have sided with the gun owners challenging the law.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sided with the majority in the case, urged his colleagues to take another Second Amendment case "soon."





Supreme Court again declines to take up Second Amendment cases


The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up several cases regarding the scope of the Second Amendment.
Despite a low hurdle for the right-leaning Supreme Court, the justices turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws established to limit the availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public.
It's been over a decade since 2008's landmark 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v Heller that held the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. Except for a follow-up decision two years later, the court has not weighed in on Second Amendment rights significantly again.
In April, the court also declined to weigh in on the issue.
Five of the 10 cases the court declined to look at asked the justices to determine whether the Second Amendment allows the government to restrict the ability of citizens to carry a firearm outside the home to those with "good cause" or "justifiable need" to do so. Two of the cases were high-profile challenges to state laws involving bans on certain semiautomatic firearms and high capacity magazines, one from Illinois and one from Massachusetts. The remaining three cases had a narrower scope, but none of the 10 will be argued before the justices.


 
This happens when there is a conflict between what the constitution clearly requires and what the justices prefer to see as social policy.
Seems as if they are getting ready for Joe to come and take our guns. Paving the way for him
The MA SJC did that just before the handgun ban referendum in the 70's - it issued a decision that there was not 2A right in MA just before the vote to make it clear the law would not be overturned if the referendum passed.
 
Im royally F-ed lol. 2012 OUI. joined the Navy in 2013 left honorably in 2018. Still hold a security clearance but.. to dangerous for a firearm my friends! Shitty thing is its perfectly legal at the state level in South Carolina where I live, but I don't risk anything.
 
Clarence Thomas:

Thomas note that the Second Amendment protecting ” ′ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ′ ” but “in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so.”

“One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review,” Thomas wrote.

“This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights,” he wrote.

“And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way,” Thomas wrote.
 
Like I’ve been saying fellas - I stopped giving so much as a rats-ass about the courts long ago. The reality is these idiots burning down neighborhoods and looting stores have won more concessions in a couple weeks than we have won back in courts in the past 20 years.

Are we going to keep following the rules or are we going to ignore their BS and willingly not comply?

Maybe our next trip to Boston we try another method than standing and holding signs / our method doesn’t seem to work - theirs does.
 
So Blue America will continue to pass more 2A restrictive legislation, emboldened by today’s news. Red America will continue to respect 2A. More court cases will work their way through the system. This issue is not going away anytime soon. . .How long does the court think it can keep dodging this?
 
If you're not working to ensure that trump gets re-elected AND working to support/give money to Reps/Sens that are ON OUR SIDE to ensure they get elected/re-elected then dont expect progress

If you're in a state/district where there's zero chance of electing a solid republican.....Find a Rep/Sen in a purple state that is good on the issues and send them 50/100 whatever to help fund their race

No trump re-election and no GOP control of senate = no good supreme court justice replacements
 
Last edited:
Im royally F-ed lol. 2012 OUI. joined the Navy in 2013 left honorably in 2018. Still hold a security clearance but.. to dangerous for a firearm my friends! Shitty thing is its perfectly legal at the state level in South Carolina where I live, but I don't risk anything.
First offense OUI is only renders one a PP if it happened in MA after the penalty was increased to a max 2.5 years.. Did you actually get a conviction in MA? If so, how did that happen - first offense OUI in MA generally gets a CWOF.
 
Back
Top Bottom