Posted on 02/24/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association — seeking clarification on the scope of an individual’s right to have a gun for personal self-defense. In other orders, the Court did not accept any new cases for review, although it did hold over a number of cases it had examined for potential review.
Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.
One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
SCOTUS ping.
Settled Law, endowed by our Creator
period
Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.
The damn cowards of SCROTUS cannot even uphold the 2nd Amendment but they are more than happy to shove Socialist health care down our throats.
This is probably deliberate silence on the part of the SCOTUS. They know well what they are dealing with in the other two branches. This issue won’t go away.
Any state, city, or country that would rule you only
have a 2nd amendment right to be armed in your own home
is no place for a free man.Tet68.
“To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”... says nothing about limits.
Amen, bro.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Exactly. Something to that effect is written into most state constitutions as well. In PA, it is, "shall not be questioned." I like that language, it may be better than "shall not be infringed." You can't infringe something without questioning it. Hence, PA is surrounded by anti-gun states; MD, NY, NJ and has fewer restrictions than TX.
IOW : “Didn’t you hear what we said the first time!”
End of discussion!
“Privileges vs. Rights”
Leftists and RINOs will continue to run amuck until this becomes the conservative battle cry.
Not one split-second before.
Reason? Because it is the source of ALL the power of the Left.
All of it.
Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.
This may be the why they are waiting to take such a case.
They want to be CERTAIN they can issue the decison they
want. There is also the issue of simply refusing to step
into a big steaming pile by issuing an opinion that even
a sixth grader knows is contrary to the BOR. By simply not
addressing the issue and leaving it up to lower courts they
maintain the appearance of legitimacy. Only time will tell.
If ANY of the more conservative justices step down in the
next three years then America’s goose is cooked for good
because all Obama and his handlers need is ONE MORE JUSTICE
that THEY get to choose and the SCOTUS will give them
ANYTHING they want.
This has to do with 18 to 20 year olds right to carry weapons. Some one should sue the court about the United States’s ability to draft and put weapons in the hands of people this age.
Indeed. They are counting on the circuit courts to do the heavy lifting, and deny the right to bear arms, or encumber it sort of like a poll tax (have to pay for the right to bear arms).
SCOTUS stood by for decades while the circuit courts deliberately misread the Presser case.
The system is rigged.
Settled Law, endowed by our Creator
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
Not settled law, but a series of words undefined in law when taken together.
Stipulating that for the moment, it doesn’t help with “a series of words undefined in law when taken together”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.