Found this Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
{dont know the site/cant speak for its content or political leanings}
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
Indiana no longer requires "good cause" for LTCH, but might be nice to see how Neil Gorsuch weighs in on the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment." {Its like they were reading an entirely different document than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}
The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.
(I didn't see a thread on this I'm sure there is older ones on the original case/if it is dupe please close)
{dont know the site/cant speak for its content or political leanings}
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
Indiana no longer requires "good cause" for LTCH, but might be nice to see how Neil Gorsuch weighs in on the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment." {Its like they were reading an entirely different document than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}
The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.
(I didn't see a thread on this I'm sure there is older ones on the original case/if it is dupe please close)