BREAKING: US Supreme Court Postpones Decisions on Gun-Rights Cases

Leghorn and AR-15 (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

Press release from California Right To Carry:

This morning the US Supreme Court announced that it has once again postponed a decision on whether or not it will grant the petitions in three separate appeals involving the Second Amendment. In all of its history, the US Supreme Court has granted only two petitions where the Second Amendment was specifically at issue in the appeal.  The first petition was granted in 2007 and the second petition was granted in 2009. Two of the cases deferred raise the question as to what types of arms are protected under the Second Amendment . . .

The arms at issue in these two cases are so called “assault rifles” and stun-guns but that doesn’t prohibit the US Supreme Court from publishing a decision which informs the lower courts how to determine what types of other arms are protected under the Second Amendment.

The third asks the question as to whether or not the possession of a firearm in both the home and in public is by default lawful under the Second Amendment or is it by default unlawful and unprotected by the Second Amendment?

This last one is the most important of the three and also has the best chances of being heard by the Supreme Court for technical legal reasons and because the handgun was not carried concealed.  Concealed carry is the 3rd rail of Second Amendment cases.  If the case so much as touches concealed carry it is D.O.A. as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

One of the stun-gun cases also involves carrying arms in public but the Massachusetts Supreme Court (Supreme Judicial Council) ducked the Second Amendment question in that case.  The Supreme Court could simply kick that case back to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council for a do-over.

The nine justices of the US Supreme Court will meet once again in private conference and vote on whether or not to grant the petitions in these three cases on Tuesday, November 24, 2015.

It takes the vote of one justice to relist the petition for the next conference of which there are two remaining this year (December 4 & 11) and it takes the vote of four justices to grant the petitions.

The three Second Amendment cases are:
Arie Friedman, et al v. City of Highland Park (“assault” rifle) No. 15-133
Caetano v. Massachusetts – (carrying a banned stun gun in public) No. 14-10078
Powell v. Tompkins (carrying & possession of firearms in public) 15-6063

For more information on these cases and others, visit the California Right To Carry website at http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

comments

  1. avatar Joe-in-NC says:

    I hope they do the right thing and hear these cases.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Best be wary if they do, Joe-in-NC.

      The ‘swing vote’ is Justice Kennedy, and the conservatives on the court don’t fully trust him.

      He can *easily* vote with the left and gut the 2A.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Yeah, but they can finally Piss or get off the pot, and we can get this sh_t over with once and for all. They are probably just strategically positioning US forces before taking the case.

    2. avatar younggun21 says:

      As Geoff said, it is precarious for either side to take cases such as these because no one can be trusted. The left doesn’t really want to take the cases because there is technically a conservative majority in the court and they don’t want to take the chance to further bolster the right to keep and bear arms beyond their scope to defeat it with later cases and legislation. The right doesnt want to take the cases because they are unsure where Roberts or Kennedy actually stand given recent cases on similar conservative issues. Taking the cases is a huge risk if just ONE of those two votes for the left and you are stuck starting from scratch. It wouldn’t take much to completely destroy the advances that we have made in the last decade.

  2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    The double edged sword that is the SCOTUS. Hope they take the cases and review them justly and follow the constitution.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” Hope they take the cases and review them justly and follow the constitution.”

      The *problem* is that what you and I see as commonsense in the Constitution the Left does not.

      Case in point, read this synopsis of the Heller dissent:

      “The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.””

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions

      It means NOTHING to them that the 2A is so clear that “even Ray Charles could read it”, in their warped and delusional sorry excuse for a brain, according to them the 2A never meant the citizens had the right to keep and bear arms.

      NOTHING will ever change their minds on this.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

        You would think someone who had spent their entire career studying the laws of this country would grasp the very simple fact that the Framers’ primary purpose for the Constitution was to limit government power. It’s absolutely ridiculous that such people are allowed on the bench.

        1. avatar Big Jim says:

          Of course they’re attacking the Constitution one amendment at a time they’re going after the 2nd because of all the mass shootings That the liberal media is rubbing in our faces every 20 minutes never do you see a story on the media that talks about defensive gun use saving people and family members lives Because that would be going against everything they are trying to accomplish. If they are able to destroy the Constitution 1 Amendment out of time there will be no regulatory system For the politicians Another words tyrant C It’ll be a third world country in America soon if we don’t put an end of this very quickly by voting and expressing our First Amendment rights on these outrageous UnAmerican demands by the Clinton administration the Bloomberg administration and by the general liberal media as a whole It’s ridiculous Gun crime or crime involving firearms used in this country hasn’t been this low since 1962 and it’s dropping every day and it’s just so that we have more and more guns being bought by law-abiding citizens every every day so it would make sense if More guns equals less crime then guns aren’t the problem people are the problem But they won’t Even consider this they go after an inanimate object because that’s what they do their career politicians complete morons That’s why I’m voting for Donald Trump He’s a career business man that is giving his time in believe me at what they’re paying for four years in office as a president he can make that in a couple of weeks For him to give up all his time and energy to run for a 4 year presidency Is amazing and I am definitely voting for any man that worked his way up to be a million billionaire Maybe we can have jobs that pay better than six or seven dollars an hour Gee thanks for all the new jobs Obama I wanted to be 43 and worked at Publix for $8 an hour as a bad person that really pays all my bills and takes care of my family freaking ridiculous just like his Obamacare that he’s taking his name off of! Now it’s called the Affordable Care Act because he know it bombs so bad he took his name off it What a hypocrite!

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Dude, punctuate.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This is my surprised face …

    The U.S. Supreme Court wants to uphold unconstitutional gun-control laws. Of course doing so would make it plain to everyone that our highest court is illegitimate. And they want to hide that. So, they will continue to delay and refuse to hear cases as long as possible.

    This should not be a surprise. When elements of our government seek to curtail one of our rights (like our inherent right to defend ourselves with our fists, feet, clubs, knives, and yes even firearms), they are all too happy to curtail all of our rights — like our right a speedy trial (legal resolution of infringements in the courts).

  4. avatar Big Jim says:

    Doesn’t the Constitution say that shall not be infringed. This is so much horseshit I can’t believe that the Constitution is being played with like the way it is.

  5. avatar David C says:

    They postponed it because they understand that in no uncertain-terms, 2A-KEEPERS will NOT, under any circumstances, abide by a law that neuters my rights to self defense and protection of my family. Just as ISIS gets its global legs, the Supreme Court would be foolish to dare to leave its populace in a position of weakness.

    1. avatar Big Jim says:

      Not to mention the 300 million gun owners in this country That would literally Turn The federal government on its side If they tried to push forward Any Laws that neutralize the Second Amendment. They would have more People & militias gathering together Then they would know what to do with no matter how many soldiers no matter how many police no matter how many drone strikes they would try to do the United steeple of this country Would revolt against the government and put them on their ass And put them in the place where they belong in the first place There’s supposed to do as we the people Ask of them not what they think is right just because they’re progressive liberals It’s ridiculous this country was based on freedom and freedom will survive forever in this country No matter who is acting as the president A revolution will ensue if they continue with this means to disarm the American populace The United States government has got a foot in their ass right now Where someone needs to pull it out and say hey do you remember the Constitution in which you took an oath of office to defend Not to mention all of the police forces especially the sheriff’s departments that take a pledge to defend the Constitution with their life against any foreign power whether it’s homegrown or Isis

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Are the period and comma keys broken on your keyboard?

  6. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    It has been whispered that neither side wants to hear any 2nd Amendment cases because neither side trusts Justice Kennedy.

  7. avatar TruthTellers says:

    They’re procrastinating waiting for Hilary to stack the court for a more strategically advantageous rulings.

    You only have a few years left to get a hold of what you want before it all goes up.

    1. avatar Big Jim says:

      All the more reason to make sure you vote this November Against Hillary Clinton If Miss Clinton gets elected as President of the United States of America there goes all of our individualize freedoms and here comes the next Revolutionary War She’ll be known as the first woman In office And the first woman president or president. To cause another Revolutionary War / infringing upon our freedoms that are protected by the Constitution of this America She is a disgrace To the office in which she wants to be employed by She is actually a dirtball liar murderer I love it We are going to need your hard drive oh I’m sorry did that get erased What about all the people that she refused to help when we had set up To go in and support them and they were all murdered in the Middle East Horrible person in general let alone for a presidency

      1. avatar Cadeyrn says:

        Not going to be much of a war if they’ve already got all of the data they need from online activities, calls, networks, social media, etc. etc. etc.

        So… better get out the vote and start working on it now. The Dems sure are.

        1. avatar Big Jim says:

          There’s one thing the Democrats do not have And that is A belief In freedom In a free country Where You are not told how to live By an upper echelon Of rich and powerful people, a place where all people are equal and free to choose Their religion And the way they want to live. In these current times There is a real big dislike for the United States government because of their acts upon the people forcing them to do as they say and not as they do! This country needs an enema very badly and needs to be purged from all career politicians End of story. In the beginning of this country politicians were farmers shop owners people that have real jobs that volunteer their time energy and effort To make this country a better place

  8. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Having been to Highland Park, Illinois(on business) I don’t quite get THIS. Upscale north of Chiraq, leftie and lots of folks of the Hebrew faith-I would guess an AR/mag ban was popular. For the CHILLin’ and guns are icky kinda’ place…

  9. avatar Dan H says:

    Pregnant judicial pauses like this are why I went ahead and bought a lower for my first AR.

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      Buy a lot more. Anderson lowers are cheap and work well.

  10. avatar Dustin says:

    They can’t arrest us all…

    1. avatar Goose says:

      They don’t have to,if they arrest a few high profile people,the rest of the sheep will fall in line. A certain demographic in this country have become cowards in the worst way,they also teach their children to be cowards.

  11. avatar foo dog says:

    at Maryland Shooters- from an experienced appellate attorney, on Caetano –

    “And the odds for a cert grant upon that relist dramatically increased from near zero to near 50%.”

    http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=4072416#post4072416

  12. avatar foo dog says:

    Read the amicus for Project AWARE – wonder what the ReliablePartyOrgans will do here-

    throw the homeless woman victim of domestic violence under the bus?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/08/caetanoamicus.pdf

    Will Bloomberg’s suburban faux mommies help a poor homeless woman?

    (crickets…)

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      AWARE’s board members and instructors are certified to teach a wide range of self-defense tech-niques ranging from chemical defensive sprays to firearms. Its staff members have given presentations at the American Society of Criminology and at annu-al training meetings of American Society of Law En-forcement Trainers, Women in Federal Law En-forcement, and the International Women Police Asso-ciation. One of its board members has published more than a hundred articles in various magazines and journals regarding the defensive use of firearms and other aspects of personal protection.

  13. avatar Goose says:

    All the forces are at work to destroy a certain demographic in this country, I don’t need to say which one but not only do they want to destroy us but they want to take away our means to defend ourselves,this country is all about so called social justice and righting imagined wrongs by destroying us,in another word,revenge.Stockpiling guns and ammo is the only way to make sure you have the means to defend yourselves when the time comes,you know who you are.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So places that for the most part ban carry outside the home, how do homeless people exercise their RKBA? I guess the governments of those states hate homeless people.

  15. A lot has happened since this article was published. Caetano was reversed and remanded back to the Massachusetts high court for a do-over. The other two cert petitions were denied. The “assault” rifle case had a dissent to the denial by Justices Thomas and Scalia. This morning, Powell’s cert decision was denied without comment. Hopefully the reason it was denied is because Massachusetts made a convincing argument in its brief in opposition to granting cert that Powell’s case wasn’t really about the Second Amendment.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email