SCOTUS Rejects California Concealed Carry Case

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS Rejects California Concealed Carry Case

The Supreme Court is refusing a new invitation to rule on gun rights, leaving in place California restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public.

The justices on Monday rejected an appeal from Sacramento residents who argued that they were unfairly denied permits to be armed in public.

The complaint alleged that a prior Sacramento sheriff who was in charge of handgun permits arbitrarily rewarded friends.

 

[Spear Dane]

This is getting old. They are abdicating their duty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If only an specifically protected constitutional right were protected as zealously by the courts as a made up one like abortion is.

 

[spec4]

I agree with Spear Dane. What the hell are they there for?

 

[historian]

My guess is that it wasn't the best possible case. The justices/NRA are not dumb to optics. They probably are looking for the right case to take the matter up with, not ANY case.

 

[jamil]

My guess is that it wasn't the best possible case. The justices/NRA are not dumb to optics. They probably are looking for the right case to take the matter up with, not ANY case.

I don't know that I'd give SCOTUS credit for thinking it through like that. I think it does have to do with optics. But I don't think they're shopping for cases they can make precedent on. At least I hope that's not what they're doing. That'd be activist. They should take cases that think may violate the constitution.

 

[Expat]

If I was being charitable, I would say that Kavanaugh probably wants to avoid cases that are politically divisive so early in his tenure.

 

[KittySlayer]

My guess is that it wasn't the best possible case. The justices/NRA are not dumb to optics. They probably are looking for the right case to take the matter up with, not ANY case.

^^^This^^^

Facts matter and they want to rule on a case that sets up the perfect precedent going forward that would not leave wiggle room.

The decision makers may not feel the have a lock on votes and might be waiting on Ruth to be replaced to be certain of a win. Also so they don't have to listen to the incessant whining that it is not real precedent because it was only a 5-4 majority vote.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If I was being charitable, I would say that Kavanaugh probably wants to avoid cases that are politically divisive so early in his tenure.

Man, I hope so. Because if Hillary had won and RBG's mini-me had been nominated, I'm betting she would feel so constrained.

 

[jasonh31]

According to a gun podcast I was listening to, Sacramento now has a new sheriff who is issuing permits. So the case didn't have standing anymore.

 

[Spear Dane]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-to-hear-the-california-concealed-carry-case/

 

[2in1evtime]

Lets just give california back to mexico only if they build the wall along its boundaries

 

[T.Lex]

Well, I had a more comprehensive post that got lost to the internet ether.

Based on my experience and a cursory review of the procedural status of this case, it was a solid "pass" by SCOTUS. Allegations too old, current political authority not doing it that way anymore, new justice involved.

There'll be a better case.

 

[DRob]

................................

There'll be a better case.

But.....but.....but the court of INGO wants it done.

 

[Fargo]

I doubt the Supreme Court has any interest in any case is that even have a hint of "mootness" about them. Loosening the standing requirement just results in a flood of federal cases filed to end run around the legislature.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Who decides whether the court hears the case? For some reason I thought each justice was in charge of one region of the country. And they determine what gets elevated to the full-court.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Who decides whether the court hears the case? For some reason I thought each justice was in charge of one region of the country. And they determine what gets elevated to the full-court.

I believe, but not positive they decide by vote, can't remember if it's 4 or 5 to take it.

 

[Fargo]

Who decides whether the court hears the case? For some reason I thought each justice was in charge of one region of the country. And they determine what gets elevated to the full-court.

No, it is decided by a vote of the full court, but IIRC it might not take a majority.

Justices do individually supervise each circuit of the court of appeals, but I believe that is for emergency matters.

 

[hoosierdoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proce...Court_of_the_United_States#Selection_of_cases

looks like any judge can add the case to the list to be considered, after a petition has been filed, but it takes at least four to put it on the calendar as a full case.

 

[T.Lex]

Different judges/justices have different expertise and interests within the law. Sometimes there's been known to be some low-level horsetrading, as I understand it. "If you vote to consider this securities litigation case, I'll vote to consider your illegal search and seizure case."

That kind of thing.

But, a case like the one in the OP, with certain procedural baggage and limited geographic applicatoin, is going to have a tough time.