Supreme Court Denies Petition in Second Amendment Peruta Case

Justice Thomas wrote a powerful dissent that clearly outlines his position on the Second Amendment. He makes it clear that the right to bear arms includes carrying outside of the home. (Photo: NRA)

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari for the biggest Second Amendment case in a long time, Peruta v. California. A new decision on the Peruta case could have determined if the right to bear arms means the right to carry guns outside of the home.

By refusing this petition, the right to carry outside of the home remains a state issue. This is a let-down for gun rights advocates because the court has trended in favor of the Second Amendment, following the Heller decision. Still, the Supreme Court has been especially reluctant to hear gun rights cases, a point Justice Clarence Thomas made very clear.

“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” said Thomas in his dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas’ dissent.

“The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights,” he continued.

“The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years — since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago,” said Thomas. “Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.”

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: they reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” he added. “I respectfully dissent.”

NRA president Chris Cox issued the following statement after the Peruta announcement. “We are disappointed in the Court’s rejection of the appeal in Peruta v. California, which now leaves millions of law-abiding Californians with no ability to bear arms outside the home.

“As Justices Thomas and Gorsuch correctly stated, too many courts have been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right. That should not be allowed to stand. As the Supreme Court stated in its landmark decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

“The framers of our Constitution did not intend to limit that right to the home. We look forward to a future Court affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is as much a part of our Constitution as the other enumerated rights that it protects. We will not stop fighting until a future Court affirms this fundamental right.”

See Also: Justice Ginsburg Regrets Decision Affirming 2A as an Individual Right

Justice Thomas was equally explicit about his stance on the right to bear arms. “I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

“The relevant history appears to support this understanding,” he explained. “The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.”

“Had the en-banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion,” said Thomas. “As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'”

We can’t know for sure what the Supreme Court’s motive was in choosing not to hear this case. It’s possible that the members of the court are hoping that legislators solve this problem on their own.

Currently, NRA-backed legislation to bring concealed-carry reciprocity to the whole country is working its way through Congress.

Or it could be that the Court is simply waiting for a different set of Justices to make this decision. After all this time, it will seem long overdue.

About the author: Max Slowik is a writer with over a dozen years of experience and is a lifelong shooter. He has unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the human right to self-defense. His ambition is to follow Thomas Paine, as a journalist by profession and a propagandist by inclination.

{ 42 comments… add one }
  • Arnold July 1, 2017, 10:33 pm

    Actually this is maybe the best result, for two reasons. First, if the Supreme Court gives the right, future courts can take it away. Second, the same is true for the federal government, especially as it relates to the current issue of a federal act to allow reciprocal concealed carry. Again, if they grant the right, they can take it away. Gun owners are far better off leaving the issue to state governments, where our power can best be felt. Forget about California and DC and New York, but for the rest of us in the remaining states we can and will have state support fore concealed carry and reciprocal agreements. Leave the Feds out of it. We are far better off.

  • Just1Spark June 30, 2017, 3:59 pm

    You do NOT want the FEDS to decide on ANYTHING. No matter what your state is doing to you.

    FIX YOUR GODDAMN STATE. Thats it. Thats the answer.

  • George Hovey June 30, 2017, 1:48 pm

    According to
    the California court had ruled that

    ‘Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources,” the court concluded that “the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public BY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC”’. (my emphasis)

    My understanding is that a refusal to review implies that SCOTUS finds no fault with the lower court’s conclusion.

    As a citizen of Maryland I am greatly relieved to hear this. Maryland law regulates concealed carry and a solid majority of Marylanders agree with this. And we reject the notion that we must recognize other states’s concealed carry permits, or automatically grant them to Maryland citizens. We want such decisions to be the province of our elected representatives only. Apparently the new development supports this.

    [Full disclosure: I keep at Beretta 9mm carbine at home for home defense.]

    • ExGob June 30, 2017, 3:43 pm

      So are you saying that all Maryland citizens with carry permits should not venture out of Maryland with their gun because other states will not recognize their permits? I assume that you know what reciprocity means. It means ‘if you don’t recognize ours, we won’t recognize yours’. I seriously doubt that Maryland’s law-abiding citizens would approve of a law like that.

      • George Hovey June 30, 2017, 5:33 pm

        Re “So you are saying”, I have no views on where Maryland citizens should travel.

        According to
        — While many states extend recognition to Maryland gun owners, Maryland does not reciprocate with any other state. In other words, Maryland gun laws do not provide for the recognition of concealed carry permits issued in any other state in the nation. Thus, visitors to Maryland may not legally carry their firearm.

        Also, open carry is only allowed with a concealed carry permit.

        An NBC4/Marist poll in April 2016 on the question “Do you think the laws covering the sale of guns should be more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? found 59 percent said they wanted laws covering the sale of guns to be more strict. Twenty-four percent of voters said to keep gun laws as they are now, and 14 percent said the laws should be less strict. Just 3 percent of voters were not sure.
        Marylanders seem pretty happy with our treatment of guns.

    • Erik June 30, 2017, 3:51 pm

      Could we possibly work on making a rule to keep liberals like this from commenting on our news stories? They have plenty of their own fake news websites where they are welcome.

      • dennis van dyke June 30, 2017, 11:27 pm

        Why is responsible gun ownership a political stance ? I have a CWP and I fully support stricter gun regulations. I am not a supporter of the NRA, a group that seemingly cannot find a reason to stop anyone from owning a gun. I think the true path to permitting gun ownership is a system that allows people to own a gun as long as they accept reasonable barriers to that ownership. Training, mental health checks, a criminal record check and waiting periods in my opinion are a reasonable prior to allowing gun ownership.

        • wtsane July 3, 2017, 8:49 am

          Why is responsible gun ownership a political stance ?” Ultimately, because of the secondary question “Who decides what is reasonable?” If you are a conservative, that answer is the individual. If you are a liberal, that answer is the collective. Get it?

    • mauser6863 June 30, 2017, 5:20 pm

      George Hovey – Please make sure you secure state permission before exercising your 1st Amendment Rights. Although you are allowed to think and believe as you wish, this right is not guaranteed outside of your home.

      So called “Free Speech” has resulted in the deaths of millions throughout history and reasonable people should be happy to conform to reasonable limits as prescribed by law. After all, in the words of our founders, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword” and therefore Speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. Our founders could never have envisioned then internet or cable tv, etc. and your rights may or may not extend to these new platforms. To protect the children and to stop terrorism, please secure permission in the form of a “Free Speech Permit”.

      The fee for the permit class is $100 and requires that you attend a 40 hour classroom taught by legal professionals. You will be photographed and fingerprinted and all your information will be stored in a government database. After obtaining your permit, in 30 to 90 days, please feel free to post on internet forums and discuss other topics publically. Failure to comply with any restrictions may result in loss of your permit, as well as criminal penalties.

      Please understand that although this Free Speech Permit gives you certain rights in your home state, such rights may not extend to other states or the District of Columbia. In addition, some states may elect to ration your ability to participate in public discourse to one time in a 30 day period. The reason for these restrictions is to prevent the loudest voices and professional protesters from shaping the debate, out of proportion to their actual numbers. Therefore rationing of these rights is a responsible policy, to promote inclusion and to ensure that all voices have a chance to be heard.

      Enjoy your “Freedom” Responsibly

      “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell – 1984

      • George Hovey June 30, 2017, 9:07 pm

        Mauser6863 – Well and not abrasively said. However, I think you miss the central point.

        You assume that you know the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, and that it is a very broad license to do as you please with guns. But the decision to not hear this case says something quite different. To repeat, “the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public BY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC”.

        To put it bluntly, the jig is up on unbridled Second Amendment rights re concealed guns – they simply do not exist for ordinary citizens. Maryland has undertaken some quite draconian gun control laws (from the standpoint of NRA) but they have not been challenged by NRA or other gun friendly organisations. That it because they quite rightly suspect that a decision would support the States’s rights to regulate guns, so they are reduced to wishing for a miracle, say that they composition of SCOTUS changes dramatically and allows for reversal, or that Congress will pass a new law supporting your views.

        But this is a Constitutional issue, and the Court’s approach is now clear: they will chip away at the unbridled right to guns case by case. And you can’t pass laws against the Constitution.

        Erik has another approach: shut out dissent and pretend it’s not happening. Talk about Orwellian!

        • Mauser6863 July 2, 2017, 12:12 am

          The Constitution is a contract between the government and the governed. Like all contracts, the meaning or the intent, does not change over the years. The meaning and the intent is determined at the time the contract was written.

          As understood by the founders and all citizens before 1934, the 2nd Amendment detailed in the “Bill of Rights”, protected citizens ability to own, carry and use arms and ammunition for lawful purposes. This was understood by all and in practice, people were Free, to enjoy the benefit of arms, as they saw fit. Congress was simply instructed to not Infringe on these Rights.

          Like it or not, the 14 Amendment extended these protections, preventing states from infringing on the rights detailed in the entire Bill of Rights. States do not have the option to deny fundamental rights to their citizens.

          More and more states are now recognizing “Constitutional Carry”, the ability to carry arms openly or concealed without government permission. In effect, restoring our Rights as free Men & Women, as the Founders intended.
          In my state, Arizona, concealed carry was only legalized in 1994. Permit-less open carry has been legal in the state since before statehood in 1912, going back at least as far as 1847 and perhaps longer. Concealed carry was thought to be the method employed by lawbreakers, as only a criminal would seek to hide their weapons. In 2010 Arizona became a Constitutional Carry State.

          15 States now have zero permit requirement to exercise your God Given rights. 24 more states are in various stages of the process. In the past, only Alaska and Vermont resident were able to exercise their Rights without government permission.

          Maryland is on the wrong side of history and human freedom, as are California, New York and many East Coast states. The political process is being used to right these wrongs and correct historic injustice. The courts have an obligation to step in when states deny citizens their fundamental rights. Majority opinion is meaningless, as majorities frequently use their power to oppress minorities and promote advantages only for themselves. As a citizen of the “United States”, my fundamental rights should not be infringed when I cross state lines.

          We will win and human freedom will be restored in all 50 states.

      • dennis van dyke June 30, 2017, 11:28 pm

        yeah great point comparing words with bullets, wow you are a genius

        • mauser6863 July 2, 2017, 1:56 pm

          Words are the deadest weapon ever devised by man. They cause people to do things they might not otherwise do. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Barrack Obama never killed or murdered a single person. They made speeches, wrote laws, executive orders, death warrants and therefore compelled others to act on their behalf. Hundreds of Millions are really truly, dead, because of words.

          The fact is freedom is dangerous and messy. many in society seek safety and order, similar to an Ant Colony, as long as they can be King or Queen. The founders of this nation were right to ensure that future generations were guaranteed liberty and freedom from both government oppression and oppression by their fellow man.

          The 1st Amendment is the most powerful tool we have to preserve our rights and affect chance. The 2nd Amendment is the teeth that protects all other rights. Governments, Staists and their “Useful Idiots” will always seek to limit the rights of others and control the behavior of their fellow citizens.

          True oppression and tyranny is when one person or group attempts to create their version of “Heaven on Earth” and impose it upon their fellow man. Think about that when you are advocating the limiting of the Rights of others or even worse, advocating what people think are their rights, are in fact just privileges, which can be limited, modified and eliminated as other see fit. There does not seem to be any shortage of wanna be “Little Tin Gods”.

          “Our Founders very much feared creating a government that had too many aspects of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in trying to make everyone equal, and in the process taking away property, rights of property, and with it our basic freedoms which they considered “God given Freedoms.” They very much feared the development of the Robin Hood mentality we are seeing today – soak the rich and give to the poor. It is a democratic drift toward socialism.” (Credit Below)

      • Pk1776 July 1, 2017, 8:56 am

        Awesome post. Truly awesome.

        2nd amendment is always considered a second class right. Your post puts into perspective on how it should be equal to any other right.


    • bob h July 1, 2017, 2:08 pm

      Your understanding of what it means when the SCOTUS refuses to grant cert is mistaken. Refusal to grant cert doesn’t mean the SCOTUS agrees with the conclusions of a lower court. It simply means that the case AS HEARD BY THE LOWER COURT did not present meaningful questions of constitutionality. Failure to bring up all possible questions of a statute’s constitutionality can and quite often does mean any omitted questions, while they might sometimes be addressed in a dissenting opinion, must wait to be resolved in a future case. That’s the way the SCOTUS works.

      • George Hovey July 3, 2017, 12:05 pm

        Bob H,
        I’m certainly not competent to opine on the legal issues. But I’m puzzled by your own statement. The lower court seemed to say that California was within its rights to regulate concealed carry. If this is a hard core Constitutional right, as most in this forum vehemently believe, why didn’t SCOTUS jump in and slap them down?

        You all deserve a rest so I’ll not make further comments.

  • Scott in Atlanta June 30, 2017, 12:40 pm

    Well, if the hope is that Congress will address the issue, might as well surrender now. What has this Congress accomplished, with we having given them both houses and the presidency? Not one effin’ thing, except to laugh in our faces when we expect them to deliver what they ran on. Obamacare repeal? Waaa waaaa, it’s too hard! Tax reform/cuts? What’s that you say, sonny, can’t hear ya? Immigration reform? Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, one of these days. 2nd Amendment rights? Wrong! Am I the only one who feels like we got chumped? Not that I would EVER vote for a Demoncrat, ever ever ever. But you would think, hope, PRAY, that when we work so hard to turn the entire country RED, that our politicians would have the balls to act like Republicans … which they don’t. A few loudmouthed lefties and the media shout at them, and their feet get cold so fast it makes one’s head spin. So please don’t get your hopes up that this Congress will do ANYTHING positive regarding gun rights. Ain’t gonna happen.

  • Michael Keim June 30, 2017, 11:30 am

    Unfortunatly SCOTUS has become a political tool.

    • Methadras June 30, 2017, 2:28 pm

      Are you just waking up from a 220+ year slumber?

  • Jay June 30, 2017, 10:52 am

    I cannot believe we as a nation have gone so far down hill in a little over 200 years. It was foreseen by out founding fathers and this is why the Constitution was written. It puts the control of government in the hands of the people. We have allowed our government to out grow their usefulness as far are our constitution is concerned and the Right to have Freedom, Justice and the pursuit of happiness! Rights are not governed, that is called privileges! As an example in the early 1920’s the Federal laws were all contained in one volume of 60000 pages. Today there are so many Federal laws we are breaking them everyday without even knowing what law we are breaking. No one knows just how many Federal laws there are! When our government creates a new law what they are actually doing is creating a crime, this way they gain control by saying your committing a crime, not breaking a law! What we do know is this! Today there are over 20000 Federal laws on guns! What happened to “Shall not be infringed”? Out the window a long time ago. It will be a long hard battle to gain our rights back and just like was written a long time ago. “The tree of liberty sometimes has to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots” Unfortunately, that appears to be what awaits us around the corner!

  • Grant Stevens June 30, 2017, 10:48 am

    The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not rewrite it. “Shall not be infringed” means just what it says, legalistic double-speak notwithstanding. Any law, court ruling, executive order, bureaucratic regulation or foreign treaty that infringes upon the unalienable right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms” is null and void. This case was closed in 1776.

    • vinny July 1, 2017, 11:53 pm

      Agreed. The law cannot be stated more clearly. The fact that the Supreme court will not affirm this is clear indication that the integrity of our instituions and offices have been compromised for partisan purposes.

    • Briguy July 2, 2017, 2:07 pm

      Well no. It was not settled in 1776 (which was the signing of the Declaration of Independence) nor was it decided when the Constitution was drafted (1787). The second amendment reads:

      “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.”

      In order to ascertain the meaning behind this extremely vague right, we have to clarify what a Militia is and how it pertains to the people. Is a militia a para-military group; are law abiding citizens considered a militia; what is a “well regulated militia” and how does that meaning apply to the rest of the statement; does “security of a free State” mean government tyranny defense of the government from a foreign aggressor…,etc?

      As you can see, it’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be, there are other parts of the amendment besides the last clause that need to be taken into consideration and agreed upon before any interpretation can be applied.

      • wtsane July 3, 2017, 9:38 am

        With respect sir, you are confused. The first section is justification, the last clause is scope. Scope trumps justification, however one sophistic-ally chooses to parse it. “Shall not be infringed” does not include the words “unless it is deemed necessary by the federal, state, or local government”. If it did, you light have a leg to stand on.

  • Mark Are June 30, 2017, 8:57 am

    What I want to know is was their a damaged party? Did the guy who’s name is on the petition get arrested for carrying outside his home or did he sue because the law said he couldn’t? SCOTUS WILL NOT HEAR cases without a damaged party. PERIOD. As for where our rights come from? They come from our willingness to defend them to the death from WHOEVER tries to take them. The REASON for the 2nd amendment is just that. So if some California psychopath “lawmaker” (really a RULE maker) passes a RULE saying you can’t carry your gun to defend yourself outside of your home, and some “law” enforcement officer is willing to violate your rights to defend yourself, he himself puts him self at risk because frankly, HE TOOK AN OATH and to arrest you for that so called violation would be a violation of his oath, thus making him a CRIMINAL for all intents and subject to the reason the 2nd amendment was put in the first place. What was that? TO SHOOT TYRANT CRIMINALS. PERIOD. Sorry “thin blue line” but THAT is what you deserve if you are willing to cage people for exercising their rights. You are not special. You have NO RIGHT to violate our rights.

    • Mark Are June 30, 2017, 8:58 am

      How come we can’t edit our posts? I made a couple of errors and would like to be able to do so.

      • dennis van dyke June 30, 2017, 11:42 pm

        The second amendment was written so the government would not be able to essentially be able to form a military state and suppress the will of it’s people, the second amendment has nothing to do with concealed carry or open carry so you would be able to shoot other citizens. I think all of the founding fathers of this country would roll over in their graves if they saw how the template for a strong Democratic Republic has been twisted into political battle after political battle. but that is just my opinion.

  • Luke June 30, 2017, 8:47 am

    The SCOTUS is scared of a legally-armed population. That’s what it boils down to. And, that’s good. As long as they (and the government in general) is afraid, we’ve at least got ‘something’. 2A is indeed treated differently than all the other amendments: it has already been ‘infringed’ upon. Can’t say that about the first and the fourth. Thomas is dead-on:

    “The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years — since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago,” said Thomas. “Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.”

    “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: they reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” he added. “I respectfully dissent.”

    • Maha June 30, 2017, 10:18 am

      The government should be “afraid” of the people. Not the other way around. They serve as our elected officials, to represent us. Not to ride herd over us, not to push an agenda they derive from a reading of Marx or Alinsky. While we can’t remove a Justice, we can sure the hell vote out Presidents, and their whole party, if they appoint people who do not follow the Constitution. Thanks to the support of the Leftist media and the former infiltration of Leftists since Roosevelt as noted by the release of the Verona Project, Obama has nearly destroyed the Constitution through the 9th Court and through E.O.s, and if more Supreme Court and lower court appointments are not made during this Administration, we can kiss liberty as we have known it goodbye.

      • dennis van dyke June 30, 2017, 11:44 pm

        and Trump is going to turn that around, Treason is now in fashion comrade ?

  • robert June 30, 2017, 8:33 am

    Very frustrating! And it’s true that “that should not be allowed to stand.” However, if the SC is loathe to do their jobs, who will? It’s utterly disgraceful. I’d like to see how they’d feel about it if their own guards were suddenly disallowed from carrying weapons. Or even worse, their ability to do so was put into the hands of the California courts and legislature. You can bet that then the SC would be more than willing to entertain the issue. The 2nd Amendment, and for that matter any of the Constitution, is not theirs to toy with or ignore.

  • William Gunter June 30, 2017, 7:12 am

    Put up the names of the Judges that are no shows on the vote. Just hope Trump outlast the old lib justices and I see our rights up held before I leave this world.

    • Brent June 30, 2017, 9:40 am

      If Ronald Regan would have left things alone there would not be a case . Look up the Mulford act he signed into law .

      • mauser6863 June 30, 2017, 5:47 pm

        Everyone was afraid of the Black Panthers who had the temerity to protest while armed. How dare people exercise their God Given rights. The next thing is they will expect to actually vote and run for public office. The Horror.

  • Bob Redman June 30, 2017, 7:01 am

    Damn Chief Justice Roberts. Again.

  • JGinFlorida June 30, 2017, 6:09 am

    It could be that the court is waiting for a better case for some reason to establish the principle. One can hope that is the situation.

  • Dr. Strangelove June 30, 2017, 4:37 am

    The court as it stands right now is not reliably conservative. What if they had decided to review the case and Kennedy voted no? This would have set a bad precedent for the whole country.

    • Dr Motown June 30, 2017, 7:19 am

      You can never be sure of Roberts either…one minute he’s a constitutional conservative, the next minute he’s an activist

      • Briguy July 2, 2017, 5:23 pm

        Or maybe he is actually doing his job of interpreting the laws without bias, like a Supreme Court Justice should be doing.

  • Robert Smith June 29, 2017, 1:51 am

    Suppose they granted cert and decided that California, (and by implication the other May Issue states), had to go to a Shall Issue permit system. The California Legislature would create as many obstacles as they could get away with. High permit fees, difficult training requirement, insurance, psychiatric exams, gun-free zones, etc. The result would be little better than what they have now. Real change has to come from the legislative branch not the judicial. Until there is a big shift in the politics of California, New York and New Jersey, gun rights in those states will sadly remain largely where they now are.

    • Rick June 30, 2017, 8:29 am

      We need another true conservative on the SCOTUS now. Maybe we could get a twofer if Roberts would put a pillow over Ruth’s head ! lol

  • Mark N. June 28, 2017, 12:02 am

    The minority in Heller still regret that decision. As Justice Ginsberg has stated, she regrets agreeing that the Second protects an individual, as opposed to a collective right. So the dissenters, in my opinion, are completely happy with the courts in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th circuits completely ignoring the actual holding in Heller. for example, the Heller majority rejected applying a sliding scale to the enforcement of second amendment rights–yet that is e3xactly what these courts have done, all the way down to enforcing laws on nothing more than a “rational basis” analysis, the lowest level of constitutional review, and entirely inappropriate for revi8ew involving invasions into basic rights. So they always vote to reject appeals.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend