SCOTUS and the Right to Carry outside your home

[rambone]

The Supreme Court refused to reaffirm the individual right to bear arms outside the home. The Maryland gun control law stands.


Supreme Court Rejects Cases on Obama Eligibility, Gun Rights

Gun rights: The high court refused to consider whether an individual's right to own guns includes carrying a firearm outside the home, staying out of one of the nation's most divisive social, political and legal issues.

The justices let stand a ruling from Maryland's highest court that upheld a state law prohibiting the carrying of a handgun without a permit outside of one's home.

The court turned down the opportunity to define the reach of its landmark 2008 ruling that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and allows them to use guns for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that gun rights apply not only to federal laws but also to state and city statutes. The court's rulings in the gun cases have been closely divided, by 5-4 votes and split along conservative and liberal lines.

The Supreme Court case is Charles Williams v. Maryland, No. 10-1207.

 

[45calibre]

i guess they dont comprehend what "keep and bear" means

To Bear - Irregular Verb Definition - UsingEnglish.com

Bear - definition of Bear by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

bear - Wiktionary

http://define.com/bear

Bear - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[mrjarrell]

Maybe Kirk can weigh in and let us know why the Roberts court went the way it did. I'll sure be interested to know what their reasoning was.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not Kirk, but I can say that the Court simply did not grant cert, meaning they chose not to hear the case.

PART III. JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a)
a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b)
a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c)
a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf

They didn't rule in favor of MD, they just allowed the lower court decision to stand. Same effect, except that MD can't claim that the Court agreed with them, they just chose not to either agree or disagree. Basically, the question still stands, and it will be brought again, probably by someone else. Maybe Mr. Gura?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe Kirk can weigh in and let us know why the Roberts court went the way it did.

The Roberts court did not go any way. The Supremes declined to hear it.

I talked to Halbrook in Pittsburgh back in April. He knew it was unlikely to be deemed ripe.

We need a split in the Circuits especially this October. This session the Supreme Court will be very busy with lots of heavy cases.

As I have stated before, Seventh Circuit is the key. Keep the push on Chicago. Chicago, to use the Guderian analysis, is our Moscow, the keystone to gun control.

Bottom line: not time yet and they were pushing the wrong front.

 

[Rob377]

BoR has it. A denail of cert isn't a ruling on the merits. Generally, the SCOTUS doesn't take these cases unless a split develops among the Courts of Appeal. It'll come up when another circuit rules differently, cert will be granted and then you'll get a SCOTUS ruling.

The justices are on the most exaggerated version of "lawyer time" you'll ever encounter. Nothing happens quickly.

There's a lot of strategery that goes on in the "cert pool." 4 justices have to agree to grant a writ of certiorari. Even if 4 justices wanted to rule in favor, if they didn't think they could win, they wouldn't vote to grant cert, because the stakes are all or nothing. A bad decision to grant cert that leads to a loss is a long, long lasting consequence. Heck, the slaughterhouse cases and Cruikshank still influence law today, despite being extremely bad law decided over a freakin' century ago.

And for the record, Ron Paul agrees that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear this case, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Just to stir the pot.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ron Paul agrees that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear this case, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states.

Because the Fourteenth Amendment does not exist, Congressman Paul?

What is it with the Lost Causers anyway?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

And for the record, Ron Paul agrees that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear this case, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Just to stir the pot.

Now I am confused... why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to states? What am I missing here?

A state government infringing upon a right is still an infringement.. what would the argument be for excluding state governments?

 

[CarmelHP]

As I have stated before, Seventh Circuit is the key. Keep the push on Chicago. Chicago, to use the Guderian analysis, is our Moscow, the keystone to gun control.

Ah,...Kirk...Heinie lost that one.

 

[ViperJock]

Now I am confused... why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to states? What am I missing here?

A state government infringing upon a right is still an infringement.. what would the argument be for excluding state governments?

I think what he means is that the federal 2nd ammendment would overrule whatever the states would do. Thus, it is not really up to the states to deny carry, if the feds have said it is ok. Its like bypassing the middle management to get immediate and undeniable results.--I think. disclaimer; I am not a lawyer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ah,...Kirk...Heinie lost that one.

Yes, but he was right. This broad front push that we have now is less than optimal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think what he means is that the federal 2nd ammendment would overrule whatever the states would do.

No, the inverse. He desires that the states overrule the feds in contradiction to the Constitution. This is the argument of the Lost Causers after the Civil War.