National Supreme Court denies Certorari to Peruta

[uberguy]

Friend to 2A or not, Gorsuch's dissent from the denial of cert is completely off base... If you're going to dissent, at least frame the issue correctly.

We'll have to agree to disagree about his dissent as off-base.

The operative reference says "For example, in Nunn v. State (Ga. 1846) — a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right — the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid (Ala. 1840) ("A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional")."

So it seems clear that 'some form of carry' is to be permitted under the constitution and not to be regulated so as to render one defenseless. From a non-attorney spokesperson ;-)

 

[Goosebrown]

The point is open carry is NOT legal in California and since no one CAN get a CCW permit it eliminates the right entirely. When open carry was an alternative then it would have been constitutional to restrict or even ban concealed carry.

 

[CHLChris]

I've been watching this petition on SCOTUSBlog for weeks and was so excited when Gorsuch came online. I just don't understand why Roberts and Alito did not grant the writ! It only takes 4 justices! The only reason I can think of--and this would be an amazing help to 2A in the long run, if I'm right--is that the chief justice knew somehow that Kennedy would have ruled AGAINST Peruta (making it 5-4 against). That would have been much worse for rights in California than no ruling at the SC.

 

[Diamondback]

Even though Roberts is a skunk, I suspect he trusts Kennedy even less than I do, so in that scenario him and Alito "tactical-voting" to avoid a battle for the sake of winning the war makes a certain degree of sense.

 

[WALawyer]

Wishing to carry handguns for self-defense but unable to document specific threats against them, plaintiffs Edward Peruta, Michelle Laxson, James Dodd, Leslie Buncher, and Mark Cleary (collectively "the applicants"), all residents of San Diego County, were either denied concealed-carry licenses because they could not establish "good cause" or decided not to apply, confident that their mere desire to carry for self-defense would fall short of establishing "good cause" as the County defines it.

On October 23, 2009, after the County denied his application for a concealed-carry license, Peruta sued the County of San Diego and its sheriff, William Gore (collectively "the County"), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief from the enforcement of the County policy's interpretation of "good cause." Peruta's lead argument was that, by denying him the ability to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense, the County infringed his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The appellants were challenging San Diego's "good cause" requirement for issuing concealed carry licenses. They were not challenging the general state prohibition against open carry.

 

[Goosebrown]

You are right that the original decision did not, but the three judge specifically DID address the issue and wrote their decision based on the fact that open carry was illegal.

The core issue is not as you say that there are restrictions, the core issue is that you cannot throttle a right like a baby in a crib while all other avenues of exercising that right are eliminated.

When there is but one mechanism to carry a gun and there are limits placed specifically on it that makes it the issue.

You at this point are purposely being ignorant and refusing to read the decisions.

 

[WALawyer]

I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not reading the decisions when I literally just quoted from them, but ok.

 

[eliduc]

Since Heller, the court has rejected all other appeals. It seems that outside of an outright ban on possession of an operable firearm, the court is treating the local restrictions as a states rights issue as they are allowing all other state rulings to stand.

The rub here is that it only takes 4 Supreme Court justices to deny certioari, the four progressive liberals Ginsberg, Sotamayor, Kagan and Breyer which is why no appeals have been heard and won't be until there are only three liberal judges remaining. Replacing Kennedy won't do it.

 

[Diamondback]

Actually, it only takes four to GRANT, which appears to be why Roberts and Alito flipped to stop Drunken Bum Kennedy from even having a chance to join Ginsburg flushing the 2A down the crapper.

 

[WALawyer]

How quickly people forget that Kennedy voted pro 2A in both Heller and McDonald. He is generally considered a swing vote and not a hardline liberal.

 

[Diamondback]

The point is that Kennedy is unpredictable, unreliable and untrustworthy. We know exactly how Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are going to vote... can we really afford to have a Wild Card in the mix on an issue this important as things get closer to rulings that are potentially For ALL The Marbles?

 

[Goosebrown]

The point is that Kennedy is unpredictable, unreliable and untrustworthy. We know exactly how Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are going to vote... can we really afford to have a Wild Card in the mix on an issue this important as things get closer to rulings that are potentially For ALL The Marbles?

Honestly no we can't.