Capt-jack Loc: Home

The Supreme Court Won’t Be Bolstering the Second Amendment Any Time Soon
Jun 16, 2020


The Supreme Court has decided not to take action on certain cases dealing with the scope of the Second Amendment.

Although the court is ostensibly conservative, lol, the justices turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws that limited the “availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public,” said a CNN report.

The last landmark Second Amendment decisions were District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which upheld an American citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Since these pro-Second Amendment decisions, the court has not taken up a significant Second Amendment case again. As recently as April, the court refused to weigh in on a case regarding a New York handgun law that regulates the t***sportation of firearms.

CNBC reports:

The cases rejected by the court involved questions of whether laws banning interstate handgun sales in some cases violate the Second Amendment, whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense if Illinois and Massachusetts can ban assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, and whether a state can limit handgun permits to people who demonstrate a specific need for self-defense.

Jacob Charles, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, was caught by surprise at the court's decision not to address any of the Second Amendment petitions. "The petitions denied today presented some of the biggest open questions in Second Amendment law, including what types of weapons the Constitution protects and how and whether the right extends outside the home," Charles stated. "For now, it appears that a majority of the Court is content to let these issues be sorted out by the lower courts."

Several justices on the bench have made it clear in recent years about their intent on hearing Second Amendment cases. In May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced his concerns about lower courts ignoring precedents established by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh suggested that the court "address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

Back in 2018, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized lower courts for treating the Second Amendment rights "cavalierly."

Jonathan Lowy, Chief Counsel and Vice President of the anti-gun organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence declared that the court's decision not to hear any Second Amendment cases is "well-reasoned.

"Today's decision is welcome, but we are vigilant that there remains a concerted effort to reverse it and undermine our nation's hard-earned progress in instituting common-sense gun safety measures and that those arguments have found sympathy with several of the Justices," Lowy told CNN in a statement.

America’s judicial system plays a crucial role in defending our civil liberties. The courts, though, and above all, the Supreme Court, will not always be there to save gun owners.

Second Amendment activists must take this to heart and start focusing their efforts in their state legislatures. State governments are just as capable of infringing on our rights, which necessitates a strong response from activists. By being engaged at all levels of government, we can avoid having to wait on the Supreme Court to save us all the time.

PS. if Biden wins in just 150 or fewer days, you will then watch the 2nd amendment go into the shredder forever. To many of the justices have conservative coats on but are lefties in their hearts.

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

I think some thugs threatened the SC judges with harm to their families or something! Starting with the ACA.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

So why do you any adult rifle, in case the rabbits or squirrels mount a attack massive counterattack?

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

"Several justices on the bench have made it clear in recent years about their intent on hearing Second Amendment cases. In May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced his concerns about lower courts ignoring precedents established by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh suggested that the court "address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

Why make a decision that won't been considered. If Kavanaugh concerns
are right that is a problem that has to be fixed.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

What the hell do you think the words " a well regulated m*****a " mean? You people always ignore the REST of the amendment. The words " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon " are qualified by all the words that PRECEDE that part.

States are sovereign entities, as delineated in the Constitution, and as such......................may regulate their "m*****a" any way they choose.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon " THESE WORDS SAY TO THE GOVERNMENT "HANDS OFF" FOREVER.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The problem is the word m*****a. People today do not understand the meaning. The antigun people think that it means the regular military or the National Guard. The original meaning of the m*****a was the ordinary citizens of the state. You needed your own weapon and were expected to be ready in an emergency if your state needed you. According to United States Code title 10 section 246 paragraph (a) the m*****a is composed of all able bodied men between 17 and 45 who are or have declared their intent to be citizens of the United States. It also includes women who are in the National Guard. There are some exemptions specified in the code. There are also 2 classes of m*****a. First is the organized m*****a consisting of the National Guard and Naval M*****a. The second is the unorganized m*****a which consists of those not in the National Guard or Naval M*****a.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

I'm going out & get me a battleship so I can be part of the naval m*****a. How dumb does that sound? Should the average citizen have access to automatic weapons? How about APGs, or maybe bazookas, explosives, etc. Really, some are ok, but there isn't any need for assault weapons. Hence the ban. Btw, how many times have these m*****as been necessary when the regular LE or state m*****a was unable to respond? I can't think of to many times. Maybe the m*****a should have been sent to the middle east?

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

No, for YOU. Simple enough?

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Obviously you don't hunt, there are many other animals out there, some are a threat to humans. But you're coloring in your safe space removed from anything remotely dangerous like a bear or coyote.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Yes Capt. something the gov't. doesn't seem to understand.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Most of it sounds dumb, but there are naval m*****as, air force ones too, not just infantry or wh**ever. BTW, the ban on assault weapons ended last December. If by assault weapons you mean semi-automatics yes there is a need. Take CHAZ we'll be going up against what you call assault weapons, chemical weapons and we really don't know what else. The middle east, I was there. M*****as couldn't have done worse.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

For historical purposes, Abraham Lincoln was an attorney and private citizen when the Blackhawk war broke out. (And, Kyle, I'm not talking hockey fights.) Lincoln was called up as part of the m*****a, the war ended before his group went into combat.
Before you say that was history and happened in 1832, you should be aware that there are m*****a units activated and serving over seas at this time.

Sicilianthing

>>>

The issues that divide us are growing and it’s all by design for a greater agenda.
It’s only getting worse under Trump... this doesn’t end well for him, us, SCOTUS or those who wish to fight and destroy us.

This is by design.

promilitary

The Second doesn't refer to any reason for owning guns; it simply says you can.