"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that places strict limits on carrying guns in public. "As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case. The court has turned away numerous Second Amendment cases in recent years, to the frustration of gun rights groups and some conservative justices. "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.'.... "The question has divided the lower courts. The federal appeals court in Chicago struck down an Illinois law that banned carrying guns in public, while federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va., upheld laws that placed limits on permits to carry guns outside the home. The Supreme Court turned away appeals in all three cases.... "In urging the justices to hear their appeal, the challengers said that 'this case presents perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question,' that of whether it 'secures an individual right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home.' " https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html What do you think of this? If "bear arms" in the Second Amendment does not mean to carry guns in public then what does it mean?
I believe the dissent addresses the issue adequately. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf
It means that, once again, the Court rules not in a common sense way but in a way guaranteed to buttress governmental power over the people in defiance of the intent and structure of the Constitution. The statement: "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.'...." is exactly correct.
"Finally, the complete omission from the individual right interpretation of any discussion of the police power of the states constitutes potentially its most telling flaw, while simultaneously exposing a deeper dilemma in its dependence on originalism. If we read the Constitution intratextually, how do we triangulate the echoes between the people of the Second and Ninth Amendments, on the one hand, and the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment, on the other? Like the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment takes the form of an ambiguously stated injunction which arguably adds little if anything to the positive content of the Constitution. Yet it is impossible to conceive how the Tenth Amendment could have excluded the traditional power of government to legislate broadly for public health and safety from the reserved powers of the states." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3289&context=cklawreview
The recent Caetano ruling by the united state supreme court would suggest that bear arms does mean to carry firearms in public. It was a unanimous ruling by the united state supreme court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (200; McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010). That right vindicates the “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Id., at 767; see Heller, supra, at 599, 628. Caetano’s encounter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physicalthreat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent. ... This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not. ... A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense. See Pet. for Cert. 14. If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe. Of special interest is that the defendant in the case, Jaime Caetano, was homeless at the time of the incident. To suggest that the second amendment does not apply outside the home would ignore these facts. The united state supreme court did not rule that Jaime Caetano could not exercise her second amendment rights due to being homeless, but rather held otherwise by stating that she was exercising her basic right to self defense by being armed while outside of the home.
But that's from a concurring opinion by Justice Alito which comes after the majority opinion in your link. So it's not binding on the lower courts.
Considering the impact of Heller and that of McDonald on state law and that that impact is still resulting in change of law on the State level (states moving to Shall issue and Constitutional carry) I suspect that is correct. I suspect as well from what I can see, the petition for certiorari may not be broad enough to cover other issues of interest in a broader review of the 2A, gun registration, categories of bans, etc.. There may not be interest in a continual piece meal series of review of 2A related issues and perhaps more interest in a case resulting in a broader review of the 2A as Scalia hinted in Heller.Leaving things to bounce about a bit in the lower courts, as often happens, will result in a body arguement that can be used to shape both query and opinions at the higher court while they wait for the right petition...when it comes, it will likely be an appeal based on a ruling from the 9th.
Interesting how gun control advocates only care about the 10th Amendment when it's convenient to them; especially when one sees all their efforts to force nationwide gun control at the Federal level in defiance of the 10th.
If the Zimmerman Bill gets passed then the US Supreme Court may not need to address the issue. But is the Zimmerman Bill really a good idea? "In other words, if you have a concealed carry permit in Florida, where it's harder to get a library card or a fishing license than permission to carry a firearm in public, you can take your loaded, hidden gun absolutely anywhere you want — nationwide. Sign on today to say no to the Zimmerman Bill, and no to the gun industry's march to arm anyone." http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/586/831/095/
Zimmerman Bill, eh? More leftist dishonest rhetoriic... and dishonesty. I can already carry in all but a small handful of states, but am for passage of the bill. I already let my reps know I support the bill. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...eciprocity-bill-foes-desperate-times-call-for I am tired of the BS, lies, propoganda, and hate from the antis.
I am in full support of reciprocity. Frankly, I want to see a nationwide Constitutional carry law, but I know that isn't feasible at this time.
Even if concealed carry reciprocity is implemented on the national level, would it serve to overturn state limits on the issuing of permits to its own citizens? Someone from the state of Texas may legally be able to carry a concealed firearm in the state of California under such a standard, but what of the people who already live in the state of California? Is it really a bad idea? There are very few concealed carry permits that are ever revoked for criminal behavior, regardless of which state is referenced. And if someone is going to go to another state and commit a crime with a firearm, the inability to legally carry it in a concealed manner would not serve as much of a deterrent.
So where does the Constitution explicitly say the states can legislate broadly to protect public safety? Put up or shut up.
The argument of balancing constitutional rights against vague concepts such as "public safety" was rejected by the united state supreme court in their McDonald ruling, holding that the second amendment cannot be balance against such poorly defined thought concepts.
Two bits of total ignorance. Government / States / City / Municipalities do not have Rights ! Rights pertain to "The People" Govenment has power & Authority etc..... Not Rights....
Considering the united stat supreme court had no hesitancy in determining that homosexual marriage is not only legitimate, but also protected by the constitution, and thus taking the decision away from the states, such a possibility is unlikely at best.
