Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 10/3/2011 10:00:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:02:46 AM EST by pcsutton]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court refused Monday 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/top-court-wont-review-gun-rights-outside-home-152139561.html
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:03:42 AM EST
Surprised, I am not.

Can't trust any branch of the .gov to understand simple words..."shall not be infringed'

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:05:53 AM EST
Well that sucks.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:06:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:10:03 AM EST by Spade]
This doesn't appear to be the case Gura was involved in.

The one where the MD AG said carrying rifles openly was a-okay.

ETA: One of the court's concerns could have been that since Marylanders aren't actually "people" they may not have "rights".
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:07:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:08:00 AM EST by David45]
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:08:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By David45:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?

I believe so.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:09:41 AM EST
Cowards.

You get put on the bench for FUCKING LIFE.

Man up and make the damn decisions.

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:09:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:11:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By pcsutton:

Originally Posted By David45:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?

I believe so.


I think three justices have to agree to hear a case.

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:12:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:14:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.

Good to hear in that case then. Is there one being worked on that is the right case for them to hear?

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:14:13 AM EST
I really don't give a flying F––ck what they think. I will do as I please.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:15:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:15:49 AM EST by pcsutton]

Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


That was what I was thinking. Leave it alone the way it is...or they might just decide our freedoms don't count outside of our front doors.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:15:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By TeeRex:

Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.

Good to hear in that case then. Is there one being worked on that is the right case for them to hear?



I believe there are several other cases. I haven't followed them too closely, Gura and his guys are doing a lot of work in this area.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:15:43 AM EST
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:26:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:26:47 AM EST by Tango7]
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:27:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:33:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


One of the things you can gat an MD CCW for is if you deal with large sums of cash for your job. The problem is your employer has to sign off on it, and you can only carry it while working.

That said, I knew a lot of HVAC techs that had their own company...
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:35:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:

Originally Posted By David45:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?

I believe so.


I think three justices have to agree to hear a case.



Four
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:37:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:43:09 AM EST
not the SAF case
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:46:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 10:47:40 AM EST by mattsd]
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
Originally Posted By pcsutton:

Originally Posted By David45:
How does the SCOTUS decide whether or not to hear cases, do they take a vote on it?

I believe so.


I think three justices have to agree to hear a case.



4 justices. Refereed to as the "Rule of 4." Petitioners seeking an appeal submit a petition for writ of certiorari, which 4 justices must agree on to grant certiorari. i dont recall the exact translation of certiorari, but it effect it means "we are sure we have jurisdiction of this case." The details of the process by which cert is argued/granted are somewhat mysterious (like most internal matters of the USSC).

There are also cases in which cert is automatic. Like anything involving voting in a southern state
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 10:49:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 11:22:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By MonkeyFist:
Cowards.

You get put on the bench for FUCKING LIFE.

Man up and make the damn decisions.



By nit hearing the case, they did make a decision
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 11:27:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.


This, we want Guerra's case.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 11:27:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.


This, we want Guerra's case.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 12:49:42 PM EST
This may be better for everyone in the long-run, but the poor guy in MA is gonna get to stay in prison now.

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 12:53:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By TeeRex:

Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By ceverett:

Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Well that sucks.

No, it's good.

This was NOT the case we wanted before the high court.


This.

SCOTUS is very picky about the cases they take, and for good reason. This was not a good case for them to hear.

Good to hear in that case then. Is there one being worked on that is the right case for them to hear?


Several. The North Carolina state of emergency law, another Chicago case, I think one in California over may issue...
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 12:54:25 PM EST
This was about a guy carrying without a permit. NOT that the state would not issue him one.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:00:07 PM EST
It is so simple it is Frightening, and it is yours , not the Government's or it's enforcers. The only drawback is that using it can be disastrous when faced with 100 to 1 odds. Life is like the Alamo, not the movies. Very few will stand beside you.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:18:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:20:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this.


chess, not tiddlywinks.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:25:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this.


chess, not tiddlywinks.


Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:27:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this.


chess, not tiddlywinks.


Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that.


The system is fucked, don't get me wrong –– but if you're counting on SCOTUS to get you out of jail, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Link Posted: 10/3/2011 1:28:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


Still fucked up if they did it waiting on a stronger case. There is still an innocent man who's life is ruined because of this.


chess, not tiddlywinks.


Oh I understand where they're coming from but I still think it's fucked up. So what if they take the case, hand down a ruling that people have a right to firearms outside the home for protection and some lower court tries to twist that ruling. They can just take that case too. It isn't like these fuckers are over worked, they work half a year then go back to golfing and whatever other shit they do. Part of their job is to stop injustices in the lower courts and they sure as hell aren't doing that.

Heller was 5-4.

We would have lost this case with the current court makeup.


Link Posted: 10/3/2011 3:10:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By Tango7:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Well fuck. If the Supremes don't invalidate MD law on the issue, it's not going to be invalidated. Maryland has THE most arbitrary permit process in the nation. One (1) man has the poer to decide if you get a permit, and the criteria are so vague as to be arbitrary. If that's not a 14th amendment issue I don't know what is.

Maybe they rejected it because it was a shitty case and they are waiting for something stronger.

Riiiight...


FWIW I've heard of more Marylanders that have CCWs than New Jersey residents that have them.

And of course all of them beat the number of non-LEO's in Illinois with CCW's - that is, exactly zero.


You miss my point. As shitty as the laws in those 2 states are, they are at least consistent and are applied roughly equally to everyone. Maryland is the opposite - CC is allowed, but only when certain ambiguous criteria are met, and the final arbiter is 1 guy. The process is also opaque - for all anyone knows the Superintendent of the State Police throws darts or rolls dice to decide who gets one.
Top Top