Supreme Court......side-steps gun rights cases, AGAIN

[The Guardian]

I was looking over some news feeds today and the Supreme Court declined to hear several gun rights appeals in their upcoming session, deferring to the lower court rulings, which basically limit rights.  Two that I remember specifically were: Maryland not allowing AR15's, and Florida not allowing open carry.  There were a couple others but all were declined.  As the news reports pointed out the Court hasn't accepted to hear a gun rights case since 2010. 

I have to say, its a bit troubling that the Court is side-stepping direct gun rights appeals on a regular basis....... 

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Because we no longer have a government which works in the interest of the people. They serve only to keep themselves in power and keep us under control.

[Earl Keese]

Because we no longer have a government which works in the interest of the people. They serve only to keep themselves in power and keep us under control.

As more and more people see what's behind the curtain, one has to wonder what comes next.

[The Guardian]

As more and more people see what's behind the curtain, one has to wonder what comes next.

I think the correct wording is ?Robe?......by not addressing the gun rights cases, they in effect are addressing them, and not in a good way 

[The Guardian]

To be real.....SCOTUS justices are lifetime appointed politicians......one would like to think, and at times I do believe, they really do look at the ACTUAL constitutionality of laws for the good of the country but  those instances are less as time marches on.  When the Court Justices break ranks and vote there conscience that?s when things really get twisted in our society.....kind of like Roberts on Obamacare......Obama says it?s not a tax, Roberts says it?s a tax so the gov?t can do it......Obama says okay, yes it?s a tax......geezzzzzz 

[Tenbones]

In this instance it was regarding Maryland's ban on high capacity mags.  The Supreme Court, by refusing to hear this case, made it a states rights issue so that if the people of Maryland don't like that particular law they can vote it out, or make sure it doesn't get voted in in the first place.  So the SC instead of giving the federal government more control over this issue they have kept this at a state level which, if the people of Maryland want to change it, they can. 

These issues need to be stopped at the state level because if they proceed to the federal level then we are screwed in the long run.

[The Guardian]

In this instance it was regarding Maryland's ban on high capacity mags.  The Supreme Court, by refusing to hear this case, made it a states rights issue so that if the people of Maryland don't like that particular law they can vote it out, or make sure it doesn't get voted in in the first place.  So the SC instead of giving the federal government more control over this issue they have kept this at a state level which, if the people of Maryland want to change it, they can. 

These issues need to be stopped at the state level because if they proceed to the federal level then we are screwed in the long run.

From what I?m reading it was a challenge to Maryland?s ban on ?assault weapons? (whatever that means), specifically AR15?s....... not just magazine capacities but the actual firearm itself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-27/assault-rifle-open-carry-appeals-rejected-by-u-s-supreme-court

[armoredman]

Gentlemen, ladies, it is important to note that we haven't lost anything yet, what we have is a very unfortunate continuation of the status quo when we have been getting some very nice victories here and there - who would have ever thought DC would end up as shall-issue for CCW? However, I think we need to keep up the pressure on the Congresscritters who write the laws to change at their end, another place we have had some victories, and can again. This was very disheartening, even more so when the originalists of Thomas and Gorsuch, that part is quite curious.
We have three years, for another SCOTUS justice to retire, and several are quite old. We also have a mid term election coming up where we must help campaign for the ones who aren't interesting in ripping the heart out of the Constitution.

[shootingsight]

There are 10,000 requests per year for he Supreme Court to hear a case.  Less than 1%, about 80 per year, are granted.  The decision lies largely in the hands of the clerks of the Supreme Court, who review requests, and make a recommendation to present to SCOTUS.  So firearms cases can get a thumbs up/thumbs down decision from the clerks to decide if they merit SCOTUS review.  If the clerks are not on your side, you don't even get on the agenda.

[The Guardian]

.....it is important to note that we haven't lost anything yet......

I do agree in general, sort of......the part that does concern me is the incremental "state-level" actions that go unchecked by the Court, that then spread to other states......the gradual desensitizing of the public over a long period of time.....and the Court going along with not at least hearing the challenges.........almost 8 years is a long time to be hands off on such a basic right that is limited, in varying degrees, almost daily somewhere in America.  Just my thought on the issue as a whole........

[armoredman]

And you are right, that IS where SCOTUS should be stepping in and enforcing Heller, which they haven't done...yet. However, I think they will soon, as there are too many splits in the Circuits,

[Skookum]

There are 10,000 requests per year for he Supreme Court to hear a case.  Less than 1%, about 80 per year, are granted.  The decision lies largely in the hands of the clerks of the Supreme Court, who review requests, and make a recommendation to present to SCOTUS.  So firearms cases can get a thumbs up/thumbs down decision from the clerks to decide if they merit SCOTUS review.  If the clerks are not on your side, you don't even get on the agenda.

A likely factor is there are not five votes to further enhance firearms freedoms.  With Kavanaugh now on the bench, replacing noodle-spined Kennedy, we'll likely see more 2nd Amendment cases taken up by SCOTUS.

[Texf6]

Gentlemen, ladies, it is important to note that we haven't lost anything yet, what we have is a very unfortunate continuation of the status quo when we have been getting some very nice victories here and there - who would have ever thought DC would end up as shall-issue for CCW? However, I think we need to keep up the pressure on the Congresscritters who write the laws to change at their end, another place we have had some victories, and can again. This was very disheartening, even more so when the originalists of Thomas and Gorsuch, that part is quite curious.
We have three years, for another SCOTUS justice to retire, and several are quite old. We also have a mid term election coming up where we must help campaign for the ones who aren't interesting in ripping the heart out of the Constitution.

Amen and amen