SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

2nd Amendment and Freedom

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
johndoe3
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:02 am
Location: N. Colorado

SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

Post by johndoe3 »

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017062 ... california

This last session of the Supreme Court has been unusual since the Justices discussed whether to hear the Peruta v. CA gun case during 12 weekly conferences (they usually decide to hear or refuse a case in one conference). Today, SCOTUS announced they have denied certiorari for Peruta v. CA, the case which would overturn 'may issue' in CA counties and make them 'shall issue'.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch put out a strongly worded statement criticizing SCOTUS for not hearing the Peruta case.
As Justices Thomas and Gorsuch correctly stated, too many courts have been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right. That should not be allowed to stand. As the Supreme Court stated in its landmark decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to limit that right to the home.
It's likely that Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted to hear the case, but it takes 4 to grant certiorari, and 5 to decide a case. I'm guessing that Kennedy and Roberts were wobbly on this gun case, which would have changed the USA towards "shall issue" for all States.

added DailyCaller article:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/26/justi ... amendment/
Thomas wrote: 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,” Thomas wrote after most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

“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,” Thomas said.
Last edited by johndoe3 on Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)
User avatar
doubloon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 11897
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Houston-ish

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

Post by doubloon »

Both disappointing and refreshing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
johndoe3
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:02 am
Location: N. Colorado

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

Post by johndoe3 »

In my opinion, the SCOTUS justices who were against hearing the Peruta case are hypocrites.

Why?

At the beginning of this year, SCOTUS issued a unanimous directive to the MA Supreme Court, overturning the MA ban on stun guns and tasers by civilians. Their unanimous directive stated that the Heller and McDonald cases were the legal basis for MA changing their laws and making stun guns legal to own and carry (The Mass. Court had said that those cases only applied to types of weapons in existence when the Bill of Rights was written, while SCOTUS said that they were wrong and newer weapons are covered by the Heller and McDonald cases). So...all the SCOTUS justices agreed on the right to bear stun guns.

So what is the difference between bearing a stun gun in MA and bearing a handgun (CCW permit) in CA? no difference since both are legal weapons and not in the category of dangerous and unusual weapons.

SCOTUS is engaging in selective picking and choosing of legal weapons instead of applying the same decision towards the Peruta case as they mandated for stun guns in MA. It's legal hypocrisy. It is a devolution from a nation of laws and rights to Majoritarianism (an arbitrary decision just because we have 50% + 1 vote).
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)
User avatar
fishman
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

Post by fishman »

johndoe3 wrote:In my opinion, the SCOTUS justices who were against hearing the Peruta case are hypocrites.

Why?

At the beginning of this year, SCOTUS issued a unanimous directive to the MA Supreme Court, overturning the MA ban on stun guns and tasers by civilians. Their unanimous directive stated that the Heller and McDonald cases were the legal basis for MA changing their laws and making stun guns legal to own and carry (The Mass. Court had said that those cases only applied to types of weapons in existence when the Bill of Rights was written, while SCOTUS said that they were wrong and newer weapons are covered by the Heller and McDonald cases). So...all the SCOTUS justices agreed on the right to bear stun guns.

So what is the difference between bearing a stun gun in MA and bearing a handgun (CCW permit) in CA? no difference since both are legal weapons and not in the category of dangerous and unusual weapons.

SCOTUS is engaging in selective picking and choosing of legal weapons instead of applying the same decision towards the Peruta case as they mandated for stun guns in MA. It's legal hypocrisy. It is a devolution from a nation of laws and rights to Majoritarianism (an arbitrary decision just because we have 50% + 1 vote).
Well said. I agree
300 blackout form 1: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=137293

5.56 form 1:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=141800&p=955647#p955647
User avatar
yellowfin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:52 pm
Location: south PA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear Peruta case

Post by yellowfin »

Roberts was either bought or blackmailed into the Obamacare rulings, so he is probably still in the pocket of the left.
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws...it's insane!"-- Penn Jilette
http://www.NYShooters.net
Post Reply