Supreme Court Gun won't hear gun case

[GunnyGene]

This one could be important if they decide to hear the case.

Beyond a raging political battle over limiting gun access is a case that could be heard this year by the US Supreme Court over a New York law limiting the right to carry the weapons in public.

The nine US high court justices met behind closed doors Friday to consider which cases they will take in their next term, including an appeal launched by five New Yorkers against a state law they say violates their "right to bear arms," enshrined in the US Constitution.

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby, the five plaintiffs in the case said that their requests for permits to carry concealed firearms had been rejected by state officials.

The plaintiffs oppose the law, which says that to be given a permit to carry a firearm outside the home, a gun owner must clearly demonstrate that it is explicitly needed for self-defense.

"State law treats the carrying of handguns for self-defense not as a right, but as an administrative privilege lying beyond the reach of most people," the plaintiffs said in their petition.

"Asserting that bearing arms is too dangerous to allow as a matter of course, New York forbids responsible, law-abiding adults from carrying handguns for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a 'proper cause' to do so."

The law was upheld by a state appellate court shortly before the fatal shooting in December in Newtown, Connecticut of 20 young schoolchildren that horrified Americans and galvanized gun control activists.

If the nine US justices decided to take the case, they will have to consider whether the gun rights provided by the Constitution secure an individual's right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home.

The New York statute is similar to laws passed in other US states, including California and Hawaii and Maryland.

The high court decision on whether to take the case -- which could come as soon as Monday -- comes with the United States embroiled in a debate over passing what could prove to be the nation's most ambitious gun safety legislation in a generation.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress agreed this week on expanding background checks, ahead of crucial votes next week on amendments to the bill that would tighten checks for firearms buyers, stiffen penalties for gun trafficking and boost school safety measures.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ights-case

 

[carbinemike]

Re: Supreme Court Gun case may be heard soon

Marylanders have been fighting the same fight as the NYers mentioned in that article. A wise lower court federal judge ruled against the state saying that individuals didn't have to prove to the state any reason that they wanted to exercise their 2A rights. Because they wanted to was ok. Maryland continued to fight is and took it up a level. I'm not sure where it stands now. Maybe the NY case will settle it for all providing they don't stab us in the back.

 

[OhioArcher]

Re: Supreme Court Gun case may be heard soon

That is if the SC accepts the appeal. Seems they aren't taking on some important issues at this time. Not sure why. Hope it isn't the case this time.

 

[carbinemike]

Re: Supreme Court Gun case may be heard soon

SCOTUS decides to not hear the NY case on concealed carry. I don't view this as a good sign unless they want it to work through lower courts first. Bad news NY.

The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The high court action comes amid an intensifying congressional debate on new gun control measures. The issue has resurfaced prominently in Washington in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults.

 

[GunnyGene]

"Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching."

"You’re never beaten until you admit it."

Gen. Patton

 

[Itsricmo]

I think the SC will let it run through the Lower Court Systems to see it "Run it's course" and hopefully work itself out. If not and it really is a debate for the SC to rule over, then they will step in and squash the states... They know what is right but just don't want to touch it before they absolutely have to.

 

[OhioArcher]

I think the SC will let it run through the Lower Court Systems to see it "Run it's course" and hopefully work itself out. If not and it really is a debate for the SC to rule over, then they will step in and squash the states... They know what is right but just don't want to touch it before they absolutely have to.

Or until the composition of the court changes and the rag head in the WH gets to appoint another anti gun clone...

 

[Tim4k5]

Sorry I've not been around lately guys.....I went back to work after my surgery into the middle of a Grade-A sh*tstorm.....it's been fun.

The decision by SCOTUS to deny cert to Kachalsky was a bit of a surprise but not a total loss. There is another case coming through that would actually be a better case for SCOTUS to hear. Alan Gura is also in charge of the case Woolard -v- Sheridan which is coming out of Maryland. This presents a better SCOTUS case because the plaintiff, Raymond Woolard, had been previously been granted a CCW permit in the "may-issue" system due to a problematic family member.

From Wikipedia: In 2002, Raymond Woollard was the victim of a home invasion by his son-in-law, Kris Lee Abbot. Subsequent to this crime, he applied for and was granted a concealed carry permit in 2003, and a renewal was granted in 2006 after Abbot, having violated his probation from the home invasion, was released from prison. However, in 2009, a second renewal application by Woollard was denied on the grounds that Woollard had failed to provide evidence of a continuing threat to his safety. Woollard appealed to the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, and was again denied; the Board stating that Woollard "...ha[d] not submitted any documentation to verify threats occurring beyond his residence, where he can already legally carry a handgun."

Woolard presents a better case for SCOTUS as it involves an individual who had been previously granted the Right to carry and then had it taken away by the State even though no changes had occured in the individual situation.

So don't give up hope on SCOTUS yet.......I think they simply passed on Kachalsky so that they could take a better backswing and knock Woolard (and "may-issue") out of the park.