The Supreme Court had been kicking the case of Peruta vs. San Diego County down the road for weeks now. The case centers on the right to bear arms outside the home (see our posts here and here). Speculation was that the delay was due to Justices waiting to see whether or not Anthony Kennedy would retire at the end of the current term.

Court watchers posited that if he decided to call it a career, the Court would grant cert. That given his record of casting swing votes alternating between the Court’s left and right wings, taking the case while he’s still on the bench would be too big a gamble for either side to stomach.

Well today, on the last day of the court’s term, Peruta was denied cert. Two justices dissented from the decision not to hear the case; Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. That’s a portion of Thomas’s dissent above. He also had this to say:

No announcement yet as to whether Justice Kennedy will hang around for the next term or give President Trump another Court pick. In the mean time, thanks to the Ninth Circus decision, depending on the state or locality where they live, Americans must show good cause to exercise their right to bear arms when they leave their own homes. This must not stand.

Recommended For You

98 Responses to BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Cert in Peruta vs. San Diego County

    • Yep, fuckin sickening. What ever happened to ” We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The manegement.”

      Seems no court in the land has ANY experience in reading comprehension….

      • Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have you been allowed to refuse service for any reason. The reason just 1) can’t be because the person is in a protected class (federally: race, color, religion, national origin, disability or also in certain states gender identity and sexual orientation) , 2) can’t be arbitrarily enforced, and 3) must not be a policy that is designed to discriminate against a protected class (like a no headscarves policy is designed against muslims or in the colorado baker case, “religious reasons” was proven to only ever be used to discriminate against gay people, a protected class in Colorado).

        If a restaurant has a policy to never serve rude people, that’s fine, just make sure “rude people” are not always black people too. If that can be shown in court to be true then by the restaurant’s actions the policy was not about rude people but was in effect about a protected class.

        Yes, this is a balance that society has struck between the freedom to do business with the people of your choice vs. society’s aversion to discrimination based on factors beyond the individual’s control.

        • I don’t disagree with your explanation, but I disagree strongly with “society striking a balance.” Freedom of association (and common sense) shows that we should be able to explicitly discriminate for ANY reason or NO reason whatsoever. It may be ignorant or foolish business practice and will certainly hurt feelings. Big freaking deal. Govt shouldn’t be discriminating. Extending that to private individuals/enterprise is tyrannical and has directly led to the “protected class” BS we are drowning in now. Discrimination is a human right.

        • And yet, a Muslim bakery can refuse service to homosexuals with about zero fear of consequence.

          Everyone who thinks that the law is consistent cracks me up. The law is a game. There are good players, and bad, but consistency is as rare as rational thought on “The View.”

        • Big E,

          I also heavily favor freedom of association. And yet there is a huge danger to totally unrestrained freedom of association. Imagine that there are no limits to freedom of association. Further imagine that Progressive adherents quietly and unassumingly take over all electric, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities as well as all banking. Finally, imagine that those Progressive adherents publicly announce that they refuse to provide electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and banking to anyone who rejects any aspect of the Democrat party platform.

          Can you see how that literally becomes an existential threat to individuals as well as our nation? How are you going to survive in our society without electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and banking? More importantly, how would 180 million or so people in our nation (that is the rough number of people who would certainly reject parts of the Democrat party platform) survive without electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and banking?

          Sure, a few families might be able to fall back on some family acreage somewhere, return to the 19th century, and live happy lives off the grid in a self-sustaining agricultural lifestyle … assuming that they could sell some of their agricultural excess in cash and pay their township would accept payment of property taxes in cash. That is utterly impossible when roughly half of our nation’s population has to live that way. And even if they could live that way, our nation would quickly become severely weakened on the world/military stage.

          And this doesn’t even address how such families would file/pay any state or federal income taxes since those entities do not accept cash payments in person.

        • Good Point Big E. That balance is determined by society. If enough people feel as you do then the balance will shift. Call your local congresscritter! I don’t feel the same as you do. I think this specific draconian action is required to prevent policies such as redlining to manifest again and add to the generational poverty that we already have in many areas. I think history has shown the excesses possible those in power can enact upon the weak without some checks. With redlining, banks were able to discriminate against blacks resulting in no african american being able to build wealth through the value of their home thus not being able to leave as much wealth to the next generation. Getting a leg up in life generation after generation is really helpful and that kind of discrimination impedes a community for many generations. Those same redlined areas are still impoverished because the necessary investments to maintain them were withheld due to discrimination. Combine that with regular, day-to-day discrimination from local vendors and schools and you get Jim Crow all over again.

          Accur81: That Muslim bakery is in Michigan where gays and lesbians are not a protected class, hence, they can discriminate all they want. *sarcasm trigger warning* – You must be a democrat since you want more federal power to consistently apply the law across all states equally! No states rights to choose who is a protected class or to enact different laws than other states. We need a federal law that adds LGBT to the protected classes so Muslims can’t discriminate just like us Christians can’t discriminate!

          I don’t think the law is applied consistently given the power prosecutors, judges, and juries have. Especially regarding to plea deals and mandatory sentencing requirements changing the power dynamic over people with the least amount of economic or voting power. BUT you’ve picked a terrible example about which to complain of inconsistent applications of the law.

        • A chocolate cream pie or wedding cake is not an existential threat. If anything, tubbie Americans could benefit from more bakeries taking some more principled stands.

          As to the other industries, one word: profit.

          People will do business with whomever as long as their money is good. Those who don’t will lose sales and may even go out of business to indulge their patron preferences. Where people can be racist, sexist, etc. with impunity is in government. That’s where all the major segregation and discrimination took place: government schools, buses, the military, contracting (see the Davis Bacon Act), employment (see the federal minimum wage).

          In the private sector, such decisions hit your wallet….hard. Either that persuades you, or the market ends you. If you really want to eradicate racism et. al., ir at least banish all effect of it from polite society, then let freedom of association run rampant. People will either get on board or else get run over.

        • I agree entirely with Big E.

          I think uncommon_sense’s hypothetical is ludicrous. The chances of the leftists taking over the energy, telecommunication, and banking businesses and then abandoning the profit motive is beyond belief.

          If they did, they would almost immediately be violently overthrown.

          One way or another, the problem would self correct pretty quickly.

          Also, there would be anti-trust issues. And by issues, I mean clear violations that would bankrupt the companies.

        • As a tubbie myself I could use someone telling me “no” on my next big mac!

          I agree that someone’s economic interest will for sure turn a “racist” into a business man. Check out Aziz Ansari making a joke about the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsFjewV4QZc.

          What happened during Jim Crow though was an entire population didn’t have the purchasing power or the broad choices of service providers in order to compete that way. Entire industries would refuse service. Unfortunately, all we have to do is look to our own recent past and see an example of the marketplace specifically not doing what you say it would.

          An interesting by-product actually was that a second, mirror-image market place would emerge in the black parts of town. Black attorneys, black doctors, black teachers all lived with the idiots, old, and poor. When redlining finally ended, all those educated professionals left leaving only the idiots, sick, old, and poor.

          This wasn’t the market alternative you want it to be though. Basically they all stayed poor together even though they provided themselves some of the same services. There wasn’t enough income coming into the black marketplace to lift up the entire population.

        • Under Jim Crow, businesses didn’t choose to be racist. They were forced by government to be racist. They didn’t ignore the profit motive. They followed it. The costs of going against the government were too high.

        • No, I don’t agree. Business owners were not victims. Jim Crow laws were designed to keep the races separate and the supreme court through Plessy v. Ferguson required separate but equal treatment, but business owners certainly gave blacks much worse quality when they did have to serve them at all (as the supreme court required). If you had to serve them food, you served them from the back door. Businesses were complicit.

          A majority of the population enacted those laws and business owners were rarely fighting at all to have them reversed.

          On their own, blacks had no collective power. It wasn’t until they started working together and en mass boycotting businesses. Businesses never on their own power followed the profits. They had to be kicked and forced to change their tune. Yes, the civil rights movement made them choose between the almighty dollar and racism and they chose the dollar, but the movement had to hit them first. Businesses did not willingly move nor did they ever willingly ignore Jim Crow laws.

          Outside of economics, the Feds had to forcibly start busing to integrate the schools. For decades afterwards, deeds required that neighborhoods remain white and not sell to blacks, jews, or irish. No, businesses were not the victims and an unchecked freedom to discriminate would quickly isolate the populations even more than economic strata is already doing.

        • “Businesses did not willingly move nor did they ever willingly ignore Jim Crow laws.” Because the costs associated were too high.

          “an unchecked freedom to discriminate would quickly isolate the populations even more than economic strata is already doing.” I disagree. Racism is really unpopular in today’s society. Accusations of racism have destroyed both businesses and careers.

      • Denton,

        No.

        Put simply, Islam has been given a free pass. Muslims have been hating on, persecuting, and murdereing Jews since Muhammad. Louder with Crowder did A segment on Muslim bakeries refusing to bake cakes for gays. Outrage from the Left? Pretty much zero. Lawsuits? Nope.

        Where Muslims categorically violate the Civil Rights Act of ’64, occurs on multiple levels from their treatment of women, to their treatment of Jews, Christians, homosexuals, etc. What Muslims do in a nation is to clamor for minority rights until they are the majority, and then suppress everyone else. They aren’t civil rights friendly.

        The thing is that the politically correct of being Muslim outweighs the politically incorrect of being anti-gay. Not so for Christians. Hence my accurate observation that the law is applied differently.

        If you think my example sucks than you clearly don’t have as good a grasp on politics as you think. You are welcome to find a devout Muslim bakery to make you a pro gay wedding cake if you think I’m that far off base.

        Should LGBT be a protected class? Sure. Should a Christian bakery be fined out of existence or sued to death for a civil rights violation, when they rarely get filed against other – particularly Muslim – businesses?No. Do you think this bakery would have been fined to death under the Obama administration if they were Muslim? I doubt it.

        • Should LGBT be a protected class? Sure.

          The very concept of “protected classes” of people is an inherent and explicit violation of the constitutionally protected rights of anyone excluded from the “classes” designated for protection:

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          The concept of “protected classes” creates unequal protection of law for certain, defined “classes” of people.

        • You’ve got it backwards, Chip. A protected class comes into being when many people over a long period refuse to treat that class of people as equal citizens. In order to rectify the situation, the courts basically say, “Look, these people are equal no matter what you think, and if you’re going to insist on treating them as not equal we’re going to teach you a lesson.”

          One beautiful aspect of it is that when in the not-too-far future whites are no longer a majority, then everyone can be a protected class. And that will be great, because it might finally get through to some of the bigots out there that hey, everyone is just as valuable as you are — and you’re just as valuable as they are.

          Yes, it’s sad that in this Republic some people have to be taught that all men are created equal, that the courts have to specifically protect some sorts of people because of widespread failure to grasp the essence of the Republic — but if we don’t do that, then we’ll be forever stuck with the notion that some are more equal than others. All that protected class status does is take a batch of those others and say damned straight they’re just as equal as the some.

        • You’ve got it backwards, Chip. A protected class comes into being when many people over a long period refuse to treat that class of people as equal citizens. In order to rectify the situation, the courts basically say, “Look, these people are equal no matter what you think, and if you’re going to insist on treating them as not equal we’re going to teach you a lesson.”

          The courts don’t get to have it that way, unless and until the Fourteenth Amendment is amended to reword the Equal Protection clause. That they assert such authority is – again – evidence that the judiciary are a cabal of black-robed tyrants.

        • “One beautiful aspect of it is that when in the not-too-far future whites are no longer a majority,”

          Your day is here, already. Considering only two categories, “white” and “non-white”, “white people” are the minority. Being a “majority minority” is not the same as being the “majority”.

          If one cannot legally “refuse service to anyone”, then a refusal to provide service is an unlawful act. No need for introducing identity politics. There should not be any legal concept of “I was discriminated against because I am a……”. The complaint filed should be, “I was refused service for no objective or illegal reason, which is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. Period. End of story.

        • Sexual orientation is only protected by the Civil Rights Act under a perverse reading of the statute. A “living statute” understanding. The intent of “sex” in the statute was meant to cover women in a constitutionally acceptable gender neutral way. That means it had to cover men in order to cover women.

          Any other informed reading is dishonest or inexcusably stupid.

  1. This is why that self-important publicity seeker Peruda should have quit pushing this case. Now we have a precedent that can be used against Carry in states outside of California

    • Are you new to this? Drake was a very similar case from the 3rd circuit a few years ago and I think there is another from the 4th circuit last year. Peruta was not the shall issue/may issue case decided by a circuit court.

    • We absolutely need a Supreme Court, we don’t need justices who don’t do their job.

      There’s a huge difference between a man/woman and an office

    • Calm down. I don’t like it either, but remember the situation we have here:

      There are four solid pro-2A votes on the Court: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch.
      There are four solid anti-2A votes: Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomajor

      If you grant cert, you are thus putting the continued viability of Heller and MacDonald in the hands of Kennedy . . . who isn’t exactly reliable or dependable.

      Far better to hold fire until Kennedy retires (or Ginsburg or Breyer exit the court), and we know there will be five solid 2A votes.

      • Beyond the issue of Peruta, what was really disgusting here was the en banc process which is at the feet of the 9th chief judge, Sidney Thomas a POS clinton appointee. The San Diego sheriff who was the defendant lost in the 9th and declined to pursue en banc or to SCOTUS and Sidney Thomas the one dissent in the 9th ruling allowed CA AG Kamela Harris to come into the case after it was already decided by the 3 judge panel on the 9th and appeal it en banc to the 9th.

        That process opening up an en banc to someone who was not part of the case at any point is disgusting and it should have been reverse for that abuse at a minimum.

    • *won’t

      It’s not a matter of not being able to do their job, they just don’t want to deal with this difficult case.

    • No, the hell with all that b.s.

      SCOTUS should have sanctioned the lower courts’ justices in the immigration ban cases.

  2. Bring on Norman vs Florida Republicans and Pam Bondi. Unlicensed national open carry could translate into shall issue for places like Kalifornia and Nazi York. After awhile, they’ll want people to hide their scary guns.

    SCOTUS has previously implied that concealed carry is a privilege, like most state Supreme Courts. They’ve also implied that open carry is a right, like many state supreme courts.

    • Courts think open carry outside of private property is a privilege or they would have struck down California’s open carry ban which has been in effect since Governor Reagan got scared by Black Panthers

      • Most folks believe they won’t hear Peruta until Norman makes its way to the SC. They will probably join the cases. Which means it’s one or the other, open or concealed that is the defacto protection under the 2A. Can’t deny both.

        • In California they already have denied both by a sneak end run around the entire Constitution. They outlawed the right of concealed carry and simply refused to rule on laws that already ban open carry effectively banning both. Yes they have it all figured out and with the courts always on the gun banners side you are shit out of luck when it comes to gun rights these days. Its only a matter of time before they simply come out tell the public the Second Amendment is dead and gone for public safety (their own not yours).

        • “Which means it’s one or the other, open or concealed that is the defacto protection under the 2A. Can’t deny both.”

          Sure they can – “reasonable restrictions”, which are not completely defined in any 2A case.

          Of course, there is that all-time favorite: “Compelling government interest”.

        • “… it’s one or the other, open or concealed that is the defacto protection under the 2A. Can’t deny both.”

          Except that concealed carry as it stands is de facto gun licensing and registration, so if the Court approves concealed and negates open, the Second Amendment is dead.

        • Except they denied cert to Peruta. That case is gone now. Won’t be joined to anything.

      • In order for a court to strike down California’s open carry ban, someone has to start litigation first. There has only ever been a single case where that is indeed what the plaintiff seeks, i.e. Nichols v. Brown (currently awaiting either a decision or oral arguments in the Federal Appeals Court for the 9th).

        • Nichols is pending oral argument. I surmise the Ninth delayed scheduling arguments until Peruta was decided. Unfortunately, Nichols is not an attorney. Although his opening brief on appeal was a good piece of work, his reply to the State’s opposition was a complete mess. I have to wonder how well he will be able to argue the case when it comes on for hearing. I also have to wonder how the Ninth circuit, which expressly refused to consider whether there was a right to openly carry firearms in Peruta, will find a way to conclude that the total ban on all open carry in all incorporated cities and towns (i.e. any place where people live) is a “reasonable restriction” on the Second amendment. You k=know they have to go that route. Chief Judge Thomas, who will undoubtedly make sure he is assigned to the 3 judge panel, is a vociferous anti-gunner, and has never seen a restriction he could not uphold.

      • This is the second time I heard about the Black Panther’s actions setting the precedent to gun restrictions. An older retired LEO had told me how their protesting with guns in front of the White House led to severe restrictions, which eventually has eroded our 2A. He seemed to infer that this was what led to a the first major step in eroding our 2A.

        • Actually a lot of Kommifornia restrictions were enacted after the Black Panthers protested at their Legislature. Scared the crap out of the sainted Governor Ronald Reagan and he signed be gun ban.

        • actually they protested in Sacramento back in the 1960’s, and on the steps of the state capitol building. this freaked out the all white legislature and they quickly passed a law restricting open carry that Reagan signed into law.

  3. It takes 4 votes for cert. My understanding is that the pro Second Amendment justices have so far not voted for it because they don’t know how Justice Kennedy will rule and they do not want to establish a bad precedent. (The liberal justices have the same problem). If and when Kennedy or Ginsburg leave the Court and, please God, Donald Trump appoints their replacement we may finally see this settled.

  4. Repeating my off-topic comment from an earlier post:

    Thomas’ dissent (which I am pleased to see was joined by Gorsuch) was pretty scathing.

    SCOTUS just trampled the second amendment-protected rights of every person living under the tyranny of the Ninth Circus, by denying cert.

    F you, California. F you, Ninth Circus. And F you, SCOTUS.

    It is near time to abolish the current judiciary, and start all over. It is long-past time for the non-judiciary branches to assert rheir rightful, constitutional authority and separate powers, and to rein in an utterly tyrannical judiciary.

    Their failure to do so will eventually lead to bloodshed. I pray it isn’t in my or my children’s lifetimes.

    • “It is near time to abolish the current judiciary, and start all over.”

      We get the next best thing when the court is re-shaped by retirements or death.

      Thank God we have the opportunity to do this this time around and not the Progressives…

      • The more that the judiciary usurps legislative (e.g. Ogberfell, Roe v Wade) and executive (e.g. the current “travel ban” cases) authority, with the imprimatur of SCOTUS (see: Peruta), the more that We The People need a recourse (elections, recalls, term limits) to protect ourselves against what have becone unelected, unaccountable tyrants.

        • Thomas Jefferson said the same thing over two hundred years ago. He said if the judiciary has the sole ability to interpret the laws as to constitutionality, this makes the Constitution “A mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary , which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

    • Don’t disagree per se. However, for over a century, state Supreme Courts have held that open carry is a right and concealed carry is a privilege. Hence 30+ “open carry” states. The SCOTUS has always cited this situation approvingly. I happen to believe that concealed carry is just as much a right as open carry.

      • So, which carry method is currently available to every person within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circus?

      • This argument doesn’t hold up though. Florida supreme court just shot this idea down with the Norman case.

        • The Florida Supreme Court has thus put itself at odds with mountains of precedent to the contrary (including Heller) reaching back hundreds of years which should ensure that SCOTUS taking the case is all but guaranteed. Norman is actually a winner.

  5. Given the ages of some of the liberal justices, the Grim Reaper just may well be the one who makes the decision for them. Ginsburg is 84 and Kennedy 80, almost 81. Sotomayor and Kagan are the only two reliably liberal justices who are likely to be albatrosses around our necks for quite some time yet.

  6. I don’t like it but we need Kennedy (or another liberal justice) out of there before hearing landmark cases.

  7. Some weeks ago, the subject of “shall not be infringed” was part of another string here. The issue is the same with this posting. Consider the first amendment, for a moment. Let’s see, it seems to begin with, “Congress shall make no law…” That is, NO LAW, as in absolute prohibition. Yet, congress does exactly what is prohibited, and the SC upholds those laws.

    Once the government gets around “NO LAW”, “…shall not be infringed…” is meaningless.

    • What law has been made by congress respecting an establishment of (i.e. creating an official state) religion? Or that abridges freedom of the press, or speech, or the right to peaceable assembly and petition? The only violation I see is “prohibiting the free exercise” wherein rulings are against those who will not comply with PC regs regarding cakes for gay weddings – but those are because two amendments are in conflict – the equal protection and anti-discrimination issue superseded. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

      • “prohibiting the free exercise”

        that statement immediately follows “or”, which immediately follows “Congress shall make no law..” As in, Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a national religion, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise. The “or” is connective tissue between establishment and exercise.

      • Not to long ago I was watching German TV “DW”, they already have a thought machine that hey hook up to your head. The Germans then ask you a question and you do not have to answer because the machine already lets the interviewer know whether you are truthful or about to tell a lie. In other words there is no need for you actually to answer the question, they already know what you are going to say. No its not been perfected as complex questions are not decipherable “YET” but give Fritz a little more time I am sure he will perfect it soon.

        In Britain there are so many surveillance camera’s you are photographed 300 times a day minimum and America is fast catching up in its number of surveillance cameras. In other words the government knows where you are from the time you wake up to the time you go to bed and it knows “who you are” because of “facial recognition” technology.

        With the current eaves dropping capability of Governments if they target you they can monitor every one of your communications. Yes there are scrambler apps but it seems the Government learns how to break them as fast as new ones are invented.

        I think the idea that the Second Amendment protects our freedoms has now become completely outdated and they may not ever have to completely destroy it. They will not have too because anyone who does not obey the government will be “found out” faster than a cat can scratch his ass and be eliminated or re-programed and that is coming soon as well. Imagine “they will say” no more rapes, no more robberies, no more violence, no more protests in the streets etc. They will be correct with chip programmed people but their will be no more freedom, no more creativity, and no more human beings left on the planet. But do not worry the greed mongers will destroy the planet with pollution long before that all happens as 20 per cent of the Antarctic ice cap is already gone and many of the Artic animals are already on the bring of extinction and to think mankind is not next is to be very naïve. And its coming much sooner than expected.

        Recent pictures (yesterday) show Henderson Island covered in tons of plastic pollution. And micro plastic is being ingested by fish which much of the worlds population uses to eat and survive on. The micro plastic causes cancer and the worlds sea fish are now becoming unsafe to eat.

        I spoke to a government man way back in 1966 who I knew very well through my work. He told me that when he worked at Wright Patterson Air Force Base during WWII that they were sending up weather balloons to monitor the weather patterns for the fighter and bomber planes. They were shocked when they took pictures and found that the pollution even back in those days was hanging above the clouds where it could not wash down with the rain. They knew then the earth was on its way to self destruction even way back then because of the “green house effect”. The movie “Soylent Green” in 1973 predicted what was coming and much of it has already come to pass.

  8. My take is this. The justices really do NOT want to rule on carry outside the home. How do they get what they want? They don’t grant cert. And, they can do this forever as long as there are 5 justices who don’t want to rule on carry outside the home. This situation is apt to continue to prevail so long as there are not 5 justices who are willing to give FULL-throated support to carry outside the home. I think it will take at least 2 new appointments to have 5 eager votes for carry.

    IF so, then what should we PotG do? My answer is to find and pursue VERY MODEST cases with 2 characteristics: 1) each moves the ball forward very LITTLE; and, 2) to fail to rule in favor would appear an affront to basic principles.

    To illustrate with just one example. A few States (DE, SC, OR, IL) discriminate against NON-Residents while allowing most residents to obtain permits. A case disputing such discrimination would change very little; it would forbid such discrimination by States that are otherwise relatively amenable to carry. Discrimination against non-residents is frowned upon – both under precedent and in society’s prevailing opinion. SCOTUS is likely to take such a case as a vehicle to move 2A jurisprudence along in tiny increments.

    Likewise, we ought to be pursuing tiny incremental movement in Congress.

    • It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. Once you have 4 who will push the issue, it doesn’t matter what the other 5 want. They hear the case.

  9. It vindicates what have been saying for years. The Scalia decision was an aberration of the Supreme Courts total disregard for the Second Amendment. People in power what absolute power and to get that power you must disarm the people even it takes years and you have to do it a step at a time. You can bet California’s new gun confiscation law that will confiscate assault rifles will stand the test of the thoroughly power mad Supreme Court.

    Their mission for decades has been to castrate the Second Amendment into oblivion and this decision is only one from a long line of anti-gun rules, many of which have been reversed 180 degrees as in the original 1930’s ruling that only military arms were protected by the Second Amendment and now that only Sporting guns are protected.

    And now today they ruled that you have no right to self defense, that privilege as originally stated in the lower California courts is relegated to the Courts and their Henchmen that protect them from the troglodyte masses who are not to be trusted with firearms and are expendable when it comes to protection from criminals or from government atrocities. This is no different than that of 3rd world Dictatorships but hey, is not the Supreme Court a dictatorship who is under the control of no one and knows it can totally disregard what the Constitution actually says in plain English. They know they can get away with anything and sadly they always have.

    • Congratulations on correctly reading U.S, v. Miller! Scalia did the Bill of Rights no favors with his “some regulation” and “in common use” language. He enjoyed playing the judge game way too much and created way for our natural rights to be infringed by the statists. Judicial economy serves no useful purpose when it leaves the enemies of freedom to their own devices.

      • So much power assigned to Scalia by both the right and the left.

        Did it ever occur to you that “longstanding prohibition” language that’s been quoted by every court for gun control was put there NOT by Scalia’s choice-

        but because it was the only way Kennedy would sign?

        Seriously, Gorsuch=Scalia=Same court composition since 2012, Court composition 2012~Court composition 2008. If anything, Kagan might be more pro-gun than Stevens, and Alito moreso than O’Connor.

        This magical “Scalia had a choice!” thinking recasts Scalia as the most powerful member of the court.

        Maybe the most cinematic, acerbic, and short, but that distracts from the fact that he’s never been the one with POWER on the court.

        That’s been Kennedy for over a decade.

  10. Only in socialist controlled territories. People voted for socialism, they have to live by socialism.

    • What about racism?

      Can I vote for segregation and get segregation?

      Oh wait.

      This entire idea that people can+should be abandoned goes back to the canard of “states rights” which has been a meme and a falsehood since 1865.

      If you let the left win nationwide victories, while the right fights for parochial victories, they win.

      California has 38 million.

      The entire mountain west has ~23 million (excluding the coastal states).

      So slightly more than half of California could literally replace the population of the mountain west.

      But wait! Colorado is teetering. They’re 5.5; throw 2 million in and they’re gone.

      I just reduced it to 20 million.

      I also included nevada @3 million. 1 million there and they’re gone.
      I just reduced it to 18 million.

      18 million/38 million- less than half- is imminently doable as California seeks to price people out and baby boomers age.

      This entire idea the right can hunker down in their hamlets ignores the mass immigration+indoctrination machine of the left.

      We fight to win on a national level, or we lose everything.

      After the mountain west falls, you really think there’s enough votes to keep gun control at bay??

      Oh, and as a bonus: if the mountain west falls, Republicans are done. We have strategic advantage from electoral college valuing rural voters/rural states more; take that advantage away and we’re done.

      Continuing to deny the pathway to victory the left has- as they’ve literally bragged about, “demographics are destiny”- is the definition of insanity.

      The only problem they had is demographics weren’t geographically distributed.

      They have the soldiers, they’re just concentrated in a few bases. Spread them out, we’re done.

  11. I get the political gamesmanship here and the risk of a Kennedy vote going either way. Knowing what I’m up against with him and the evil four, I’d probably hold off, too, for now until Trump can appoint a replacement for someone.

    Still, you would think that the SC would take this case and rule unanimously, just on the issue of the lower courts ignoring SC precedent. It’s a sad, sad day when liberal justices would rather destroy the court than defend freedom.

  12. “Two justices dissented from the decision not to hear the case; Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.”

    To me, this means Trump was worth it. Like I’ve said before, I’ll never be satisfied until we have everything, but I am glad to see we haven’t lost ground with Gorsuch replacing Scalia.

    • Amen to that. I put a lot of time and money into the ’16 Trump campaign. My comments regarding Trump appointing pro-2nd Amendment SCOTUS justice are memorialized, despite a lot of disagreement from folks on TTAG.

  13. Section I of the opinion is the facts and procedural history of the case, which I thing most of us are familiar with. I did not know that the 9th Circus took the case en banc sua sponte. Sua sponte means that a party did not request it to do so.

    Section II A basically says the 9th Circus ignored the question presented in the case.

    Section II B starts with: “Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result.” Justice Thomas examines the SC jurisprudence in favor the right to carry, historical jurisprudence in favor, and the core of the 2A being self-defense being in favor of the right. He explains that the SC has already ruled that the right to bear arms means to carry them in public. He stated some cases have held “some regulation of public carry is permissible.” He did not say that himself.

    Section II C explains why the case should be heard regardless of anyone’s opinion on what the 2A means. The way he lays it out, the reasoning for not hearing the case is basically “but guns.”

    He then ends with the paragraph opening this article.

  14. You’re not going to believe me when I say this, but at the 30,000 foot level it is a good thing that it was declined. There was a terrible record from courts that were horribly disposed toward the Second Amendment and the chances of reaching a good outcome from the terrible record were slim. It was far more likely that the majority would have sustained the lower courts which would have led to San Diego standards suddenly springing up everywhere.

    I am just as appalled as anyone that one should ever be called upon to show “good cause” to exercise Second Amendment rights. Nobody would ever have imposed such a standard on the right to speak, read, argue, practice religion, associate or disassociate, walk, amble or loaf or exercise any one of the other rights protected by the Constitution yet here we are.

    It comes down to voting. Vote in the state governors’ elections this fall. Vote in the mid-term elections in November 2018. Vote in your local elections to empower Second Amendment supporters and drive out enemies of freedom.
    Vote in every single election every single time and eventually we will have politicians who will support our rights and they’ll appoint judges who will protect our rights.

    We’re simply not going to win anything coming out of California or the Ninth Circuit – and, by the way, it is absolutely appalling how huge that circuit is and how many incredibly disparate states it covers. There is simply no way it should cover the entire West the way it does. Montana ruled by California? Idaho? Ridiculous.

  15. do women ever have to show good cause to exercise their “14th amendment right”

    that was of course a rhetorical question btw

Leave a Reply

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