Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    "The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes. The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons."
    Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    "The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes. The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons."
    Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal

    I will never understand why it's so hard for some people to figure out what the hell "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" means.
     

    4guyz1stool

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 16, 2017
    172
    And they allowed tax payer dollars to go to church playgrounds, which is confusing because churches don't pay taxes.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    Has Trump tweeted about this yet? He did say the 2A would no longer be trampled upon and this chance was just trampled. ? I am betting on crickets from him.
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    Trump is already doing the one and only thing that matters, appointing supreme court judge(s) who respect the Second Amendment. On that count, he's one for one. There's no reason to suspect he'll change course on the next appointment.
     

    Steve_Zissou

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2017
    1,042
    Baltimore City
    Trump is already doing the one and only thing that matters, appointing supreme court judge(s) who respect the Second Amendment. On that count, he's one for one. There's no reason to suspect he'll change course on the next appointment.

    This.

    We've already got Gorsuch, and there's no reason why that trend shouldn't continue on through Kennedy and Ginsburg's replacements. I'm fairly hopeful at this point in time.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    From John Farnam:

    26 June 17

    Supremes:

    It is truly said:

    “Where you stand depends on where you sit!”

    Today, our Supreme Court cynically declined to hear the Peruta V CA Case.
    Justices Thomas and Gorsuch magnificently dissented!

    I can’t put it more eloquently:

    “The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not
    think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing
    its preferred rights. Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our
    Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.

    The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven
    years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v Chicago. Since that time, we
    have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question
    presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned
    on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable,
    especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect
    to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.

    For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a
    vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might
    seem antiquated and superfluous. But, the Framers made a clear choice:
    They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do
    not think we should stand-by idly, while a State denies its citizens that
    right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

    I respectfully dissent.”

    Thomas and Gorsuch are genuine heroes!

    ... and they will have their day!

    Before DJT’s first term ends, Justice Thomas will be writing the MAJORITY
    ruling in a Second Amendment Case.

    In the interim, Californians are on their own. Their governor, state
    legislature, and at least some of the Supremes consider them expendable.

    No “marbled halls” protect them, nor for that matter, the rest of us!

    /John





    _______________________________________________
    John Farnam's Quips mailing list
    JSFarnam@aol.com
    Copyright 2017 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.
     

    Defense Rifle

    Active Member
    Jul 1, 2016
    238
    NC
    In a way it's a good thing, because it may very well have been a 5-4 loss for the 2A. With Justice Kennedy being the swing vote he could have potentially ruled that states have a right to place restrictions on conceal carry citing public safety interests.

    It's better to take this case up when there's one more conservative judge on the bench. You really shouldn't risk these things when you have such a wishy washy moderate like Kennedy casting swing votes.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    In a way it's a good thing, because it may very well had been a 5-4 loss for the 2A. With Justice Kennedy being the swing vote he could have potentially ruled that states have a right to place restrictions on conceal carry citing public safety interests.

    It's better to take this case up when there's one more conservative judge on the bench. You really shouldn't risk these things when you have such a wishy washy moderate like Kennedy casting swing votes.

    We could be waiting years!

    Look how long RGB has held out, she wouldn't even let Leftist Obama pick her replacement.
     

    iH8DemLibz

    When All Else Fails.
    Apr 1, 2013
    25,396
    Libtardistan
    She's a tough old bird.

    RBG.jpg
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    And they allowed tax payer dollars to go to church playgrounds, which is confusing because churches don't pay taxes.


    I was confused on this at first but after listening to the facts in the case it seems that what was ruled unconstitutional about the Missouri law was the fact that the state has a very specific program for " schools" where if the school agreed to use recycled tires for playground surface they could receive a grant to pay for asphalt. The grants were paid out to other non-taxable schools but specifically rejected for a specific religious school.

    The court was ruling that since the program was created for schools in general and since the religious school met the requirements of the grant otherwise they should be eligible. Also the report cited that by giving the grant to the religious school in addition to all other eligible schools the "State" was not "endorsing" a specific faith. Additionally states often provide funding in ways for hospitals including non-profit hospitals with a religious affiliation.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom