Posts Tagged Supreme Court

Hawaiian Gun Challenge May Get To Supreme Court

From Investing.com:

George Young is a Vietnam War veteran who sued the state of Hawaii three times on his own without a lawyer for the right to carry a handgun, and lost each time.

Alan Beck is an independent lawyer who took on Young’s appeal for free.

Last month, the duo won a major victory for gun rights when an appeals court found Hawaii’s restrictive handgun law unconstitutional, a ruling that could lead to a landmark decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to bear arms in public. And they did so without the help of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

SCOTUS Nominee On Second Amendment

From Reason:

No nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court has had such a detailed record on Second Amendment as does Brett Kavanaugh. His 2011 dissenting opinion in the case known as Heller II was consistent with his long-standing adherence to text, history, tradition, and Supreme Court precedent.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Continues To Ignore Second Amendment Cases

From Reason:

Ten years ago this week, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense. Since then the Court has revisited the subject only twice, while it has heard about 45 cases involving the Fourth Amendment and about 60 involving the First.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Denies Another Gun Case

From Townhall:

The Supreme Court declined to hear a civil rights lawsuit brought about by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, reason reported. The two pro-gun groups decided to challenge Alameda County, California’s zoning laws that effectively ban gun stores, saying it violates county residents’ Second Amendment rights.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Heller Was The First Step In Repealing The Second Amendment

From The Federalist:

The Second Amendment was repealed, in effect, by Heller’s majority opinion. The opinion went beyond questions raised in the case and laid out a rationale by which Congress, states, and courts could ban the private possession of many offensive and defensive arms today and all such arms of the future.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Refuses To Grant 2A Rights Nationally

From Fox News:

In a stirring victory for those who live in the national’s capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a “special” need for self-defense, what is referred to as a “good reason” requirement.  The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendment’s application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Court’s 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding California’s good reason requirement.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Second Amendment Headed To Supremes In 2017

From Breitbart.com:

For the first time in U.S. history, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down a federal gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment, meaning that next year the Supreme Court will hear a case that includes the opportunity to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms by overruling the Court’s famous Heller precedent.

That means the Obama administration’s solicitor general will now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review this case. Under these rare circumstances, it is virtually 100 percent certain that the justices will grant review and hear the case.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Chips Away At Fourth Amendment

From Rare.us:

On Monday, SCOTUS continued this assault on the Fourth Amendment. It concluded that even when the government admits a stop was illegal, it can still use that evidence to prosecute you.

Under Heien, the cops only had to prove reasonable ignorance of the law: “I didn’t realize stopping this person was illegal, but I found this evidence, so we should use it.”

Now, under Monday’s Utah v. Strieff, even that charade is no longer necessary. Police can simply say: “Yeah, that stop was illegal, but I found this evidence, so we should use it.”

This is all the more reason for citizens to familiarize themselves with jury nullification. You can learn more about it from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA).

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

SCOTUS Nominee Garland Not Fond Of Guns

From The Washington Times:

In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administrationeffort to store gun-buyers’ records.

 Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case

From Bloomberg:

A Highland Park resident and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the city’s 2013 law. They argued in their appeal that lower courts are engaging in “massive resistance” to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that said the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

“In the seven years since that opinion was handed down, the lower courts have assiduously worked to sap it of any real meaning,” the appeal argued. “They have upheld severe restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that would be unthinkable in the context of any other constitutional right.”

 

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court May Hear Gun Ban Case

From MSNBC:

If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Do Recent Supreme Court Rulings Threaten Gun Rights?

From Townhall.com:

Those efforts are bound to continue, especially now that the United States Supreme Court appears to be open to reaching decisions based on political considerations and public pressure, as opposed to basing their decisions solely on the U.S. Constitution.

Initially there will probably be regulatory steps implemented to restrict certain types of ammunition purchases, adding excessive amounts of taxes to various calibers or types of ammo so that it becomes cost-prohibitive to buy. You can’t target shoot with an AK-47 if the ammunition is so expensive that you can’t afford to buy it. The same goes for all the other so-called “assault weapons”.

 

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Gun People Are Second Class Citizens

From Huffington Post:

The Court’s widely-noted failure to clarify the scope of Americans’ Second Amendment rights is shocking and inexcusable. Justice Thomas ruefully observed that the Court has granted review in decisions “involving alleged violations of rights it has never previously enforced” and involving rights claims that are “expressly foreclosed by precedent.” And yet, in the Second Amendment context, the Court has refused to give law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their rights the certain protection they deserve.

, , , , ,

No Comments

SF Gun Laws Don’t Trump My Safety

From David French of National Review:

If I lived in San Francisco, I would violate that law. San Francisco’s anti-gun ideology is simply not worth risking my family’s safety. I do not have confidence that — even with practice — my wife and older children would be able to unlock a safe as quickly as necessary, under extreme stress (nor am I completely confident that I could do it). In fact, it’s hard to see a clear downside to violating the law. Yes, there are criminal penalties for noncompliance, but San Francisco isn’t doing house-to-house searches for gun safes. It simply doesn’t have the resources to systematically enforce this law, and it never had any intention of systematically enforcing the law. Instead, it’s counting on the least dangerous gun owners in America (the law-abiding cohort) to voluntarily render themselves more vulnerable. I would dissent. In fact, I have dissented in other, similar jurisdictions in years past.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Supreme Court Declines To Hear San Fran Gun Case

By declining to hear the case the Supreme Court has essentially given the “thumbs up” to this law and signaled to other cities that they may do the same.

From Yahoo News:

By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.

The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.

 

 

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments