SCOTUS turns down Peruta case on carrying guns in public

[MillCreek]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Supremes declined to hear the case.

[Brad Johnson]

Something about this doesn't jive. It was a 7-4 ruling, meaning there has to be something, some part of the bill, which caused some usually right-leaning justices to join the refusal. Maybe the more politically savvy among us can shed light?

Brad

[Angel Eyes]

7-4?  There are eleven Supreme Court justices?

[Brad Johnson]

I found that odd, too. I always thought there were 9. Maybe someone fat-fingered their keyboard when writing the story.

Brad

[K Frame]

Fake news

[TechMan]

The 7 to 4 is in reference to the 9th Court of Appeals.

[Angel Eyes]

The 7 to 4 is in reference to the 9th Court of Appeals.

Yup.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-2nd-amendment-case-look-at-california-law.html

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.

[K Frame]

"The 7 to 4 is in reference to the 9th Court of Appeals."

Fake court.

[AJ Dual]

According to the article, only Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. Which leaves Alito and Roberts not granting cert either. So Kennedy acting as swing vote didn't even come into play.

Could be a whole host of things. Could be that Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito didn't want to take it on other state vs. federal grounds, secondary precedents not even related to guns and RKBA that they didn't like. Who knows? Maybe it actually was even a matter of it not being the "best" RKBA case. Perhaps they're waiting on Kennedy to retire, and Ginsburg to croak.

Dunno.

The one limiting factor for the conservative/constructionist judges on "our side" is that they also hold dear to Judicial Restraint. Those aren't just words to them.  And that means sometimes our pet causes don't get a hearing.

[Perd Hapley]

The one limiting factor for the conservative/constructionist judges on "our side" is that they also hold dear to Judicial Restraint. Those aren't just words to them.  And that means sometimes our pet causes don't get a hearing.

Well, they are to the chief justice, but aside from him...

[AJ Dual]

Well, they are to the chief justice, but aside from him...

Yeah... his sellout on Obamacare, when there were more than one clear-cut Constitutional bases from which he could have easily struck it indeed makes me wonder what "they" had on him.

My hope is that it was at least over something as bad as private-eye hooker telephoto pics, or a manila envelope full of photos of his kids in crosshairs or something. If it was merely the pressure from the various establishment D.C. chattering classes, then my estimation of the man really goes down after that...

[Pb]

If four justices want to take the case, the supreme court hears it.  Three signed the dissent.  It is entirely possible that one other justice (maybe Alito) supports gun rights in this case but refused to supporting taking the case, believing gun rights would lose.

[230RN]

Golden words:

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented. The court’s refusal to hear the case, Justice Thomas wrote, “reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,” Justice Thomas wrote, “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.”

Not sure I like the limiting clause "for self-defense," but it was probably necessary to make the statement moderately acceptable to the public at large.

Terry, 230RN

(Quote from OP's citation.)

[Hawkmoon]

Golden words:


Not sure I like the limiting clause "for self-defense," but it was probably necessary to make the statement moderately acceptable to the public at large.

It's also consistent with Scalia's language from Heller.

[230RN]

I didn't like it then, either.

[MechAg94]

Could be someone doesn't want an end result undermining gun rights. 

[230RN]

^ Probably true.

Sort of like ideally,  the libs want an ironclad anti case and the cons want an ironclad pro case.

One of the things I liked about the Heller case was the historical detail about the positive uses of firearms throughout our existence beyond mere "self defense." But of course the case pretty much hinged on that particular detail.

Terry, 230RN

[Perd Hapley]

I never did complete my write-up on the Heller decision, which I said I would provide in some thread or another. It actually has some pretty glaring mistakes.

[Scout26]

Patience.   There will be other cases.  Perhaps after Kennedy retires and Ginsburg goes to meet her maker.   Then Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer (He's getting up there as well.  He's 79) are all that left of the left side of the court.   Then rulings become 6-3 or even 7-2.  So there's two more Trump will probably appoint.  Anyone on his list that doesn't seem to support the 2A that we should worry about ??

Maybe Kennedy is having "Buyer's Remorse" on Heller and MacDonald, and would vote the other way on Peruta.  Perhaps we have dodged a bullet...

[Pb]

Yeah, I would be "Machinegun Sammy" intentionally voted against taking the case because he knew the pro-gun side would loose.  We may have to replace a single justice on the anti/squishy side to win.

[TommyGunn]

I never did complete my write-up on the Heller decision, which I said I would provide in some thread or another. It actually has some pretty glaring mistakes.

Your write-up, or the HellER   case?  (££££#-▪▪♡♡♡♡{■< Autocorrect, why the **  does it HAVE  to capitalize the last two letters in the  case name?)