Category Archives: Second Amendment

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude 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, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.

The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times

On Monday, the Supreme Court failed to grant certiorari to an important Second Amendment case.

The case, Peruta v California, has been closely watched by gun rights and gun control advocates, law enforcement and legal experts nationwide, and many had predicted that while the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take on other concealed weapons cases this one could be the vehicle to decide how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home reported Kristina Davis of the San Diego Union Tribune.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners who were denied concealed-carry permits by the San Diego County California sheriff filed a petition asking the high court to consider hearing their case, which they lost on appeal at the Far Left 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Edward Perutas journey to the Supreme Court began back in 2009. Bob Adelmann reports that Perutas application for a concealed weapons permit was turned down by the San Diego Sheriff because the law stated he had to show good cause why he needed such a permit. Strict interpretations of that law impelled Peruta, with the help of numerous public-interest law firms and pro-gun groups, to sue. His case wended its way through the courts, winding up on the docket of the 9th Circuit of Appeals. A panel of three judges ruled in Perutas favor, but a full appeals court hearing reversed, saying:

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.

Peruta and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking the courts opinion in the case, claiming that the California law could lead to a prohibition on carrying a gun outside the home for any reason.

Our friends at Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief that challenged Californias restrictive good cause requirement for concealed carry licenses. Read GOA's brief here.

Through its Monday decision not to accept the case the Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circuit of Appeals decision.

Adelmann notes it takes four Supreme Court justices to consider a lower courts ruling, and, despite the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the bench, just one other justice could be found to vote to take the case.

Gorsuch concurred in Justice Clarence Thomas eloquent dissent that criticized the majority for its continuing reticence to rule on important Second Amendment issues.

Thomas dissent should be required reading for everyone concerned about how constitutional rights are abrogated through denial. Wrote Thomas:

At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance, or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore [have granted] the petition for a writ of certiorari.

California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing good cause, among other criteria.

In the county where petitioners reside [San Diego], the sheriff has interpreted good cause to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriffs policy specifies that concern for ones personal safety does not alone satisfy this requirement.

Instead, an applicant must show a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harms way. [A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety by definition cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream. As a result, ordinary, law-abiding, responsible citizens, [as quoted from the Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller], may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.

Consequently, with Californias injunction against open carry, and San Diegos injunction against concealed carry, citizens are, wrote Thomas, unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. He added, I find it extremely improbable that the Framers [of the Constitution] understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

Thomas came close to putting his finger on why the present majority doesnt want to take cases like Peruta says Adelmann: fear of giving Second Amendment supporters a clear victory that anti-gun members of the court want to avoid.

Thomas noted that the 9th Circuit focused only on the specific term good cause and left out consideration of the much broader, much more important, and to the majority, much more dangerous, proposition: The approach taken by the [9th Circuit Court] is indefensible, and the [present] petition raises important questions that this Court should address. Had the Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. (emphasis ours)

However, what makes Justice Thomas dissent so compelling is his unprecedented attack on the hypocrisy of the anti-gun elite on the Court:

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

Justice Thomas is right the Framers of the Constitution did not reserve the right of self-defense to those elite members of society whose position or wealth provides them with armed guards. When the courts fail to enforce the promises of the Constitution, then it is up to the legislature to act. We urge Congress to take up and pass a national concealed carry bill.

The rest is here:
Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite? - ConservativeHQ

Audio clip: Listen to audio clip.

FOX's Eben Brown has this week's 'FOX Bullet Points':

I'm Eben Brown.

Second Amendment advocates are a bit upset the U.S. Supreme Court didn't take up the case of a California man suing over a denial of a concealed carry permit. In Peruta v. California, the sheriff in San Diego says he can refuse to issue concealed carry permits if the applicant doesn't show a real need for one. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch published a dissent to the court's rejection, calling it 'distressing.'

Meanwhile, in Kansas, it'll be legal to carry without a permit on college campus' starting this Saturday.

You know PayPal, and Square, and Stripe? All three are used more and more by retailers to complete electronic payments. But the three outfits, which are not banks, are now the target of a class action lawsuit. Firearms retailer Blar Gladwin of California, who has his federal firearms license, say the three agencies deny him their services because he sells guns. Gladwin claims it's a civil rights violation.

Those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News!

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case 'Distressing ... - FOX News Radio (blog)

Fabrizio Vianello, Second Amendment supporter and owner at Eltenda Channel on Youtube, photographed in Illinois with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and his dog Peanut. (Photo: Ben Philippi)

Originally from Italy, Fabrizio Vianello fell in love with an American girl and immigrated to America. Although still fond of his homeland, Fabrizio loves his new country for its infinite possibilities, freedom, and especially, the right to keep and bear arms.

Im the new kid in town.

I moved to America from Europe a few years ago, and since then I have learned so much about what it means to be an American and the importance of the Bill of Rights. People like me have come from all over the world looking for the kind of freedom that America was known for.

The Second Amendment, like all the others, is one of the basic rights that every American in every state should defend. I am surprised at the disinformation campaign of the media and the propaganda against firearms and I hope the people of this great country never forget the importance of their right to bear arms.

Godspeed!

Read more perspectives on Americas gun culture in Ben Philippis book We The People.

Original post:
Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment - Guns.com

Many California firearm owners were given a reprieve Thursday from making a tough decision after a federal judge temporarily blocked a key provision of the states gun control laws approved last year in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

At the request of attorneys for the National Rifle Assn., U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction blocking a law that requires Californians to dispose of large-capacity ammunition magazines by Saturday or face fines and possible jail time.

If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess ones self of lawfully acquired property, Benitez wrote. That is a choice they should not have to make.

The NRA and its state affiliate are still pursuing lawsuits seeking court decisions on the law, and those may take months to resolve.

NRA attorney C.D. Michel welcomed the granting of the preliminary injunction.

My clients are pleased the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and that law abiding gun owners have a right to choose to have these magazines to help them defend themselves and their families, Michel said in a statement.

The plaintiffs include gun owners from the San Diego area and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the NRAs state affiliate which is headed by Michel, an attorney for the national group.

Gun rights advocates and some law enforcement officials said few people who own the newly outlawed magazines have turned them in to police and expect many people will hang on to them until courts decide the pending challenges to the law on the merits.

Until this is litigated, I think some will hold on [to the magazines], Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said. Others who are concerned about ramifications might sell them in another state.

No magazines have been turned in to the Kern County Sheriffs Office in the last three months, he said.

Youngblood, who is immediate past president of the California State Sheriffs Assn., said his deputies would not be going to homes and businesses with the primary purpose of searching for the outlawed magazines, even if the law had not been blocked.

If they show up in an investigation, they could be a tool for further investigation, he said.

In 2000, California banned the sale of large-capacity magazines, but those who owned the devices were allowed to keep them. That changed when 63% of California voters approved Proposition 63 in November. That initiative, and legislation adopted at the time, bans the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Sean Brady, an attorney for gun owners, estimates tens of thousands of Californians still have large-capacity magazines. The law says that options for owners of the magazines include transferring them to a federally licensed gun dealer, destroying them or turning them over to law enforcement.

Anyone in possession of a banned magazine starting Saturday would have faced a citation for an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 per magazine, or could have been found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 and up to a year in jail.

Patrick Lovette, a resident of San Diego County and a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, says the ban on the magazines is unfair and unwarranted. The retired Navy veteran said in court papers that he owns multiple magazines that he would like to pass on to his heirs.

Updates from Sacramento

But Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the primary proponent of Proposition 63, said the law was important to enforce.

Large-capacity magazines serve only one purpose: efficient and effective mass murder, Newsom said. Used in almost every mass shooting in the U.S. since the 1990s, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. They belong in theaters of war, not peaceful communities.

State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra argued in court papers that the ban on large-capacity magazines is justified because they have been found at the scenes of mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub, Columbine High School, Sandy Hook Elementary School and in San Bernardino, where two terrorists in 2015 killed 14 people attending a holiday party.

These large-capacity magazines are disproportionately used in crime, and feature prominently in some of the most serious crime, including homicides, mass shootings, and killings of law enforcement officers, Becerra said in his written answer to the lawsuit.

In a statement released Thursday night, Becerra vowed to defend the state law.

Restricting large-capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities, he said in the statement. I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence.

The restraining order was sought by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., which argued that the ban on large-capacity magazines violates both the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians to bear arms as well as protections against taking property without due process or compensation.

Banning magazines over ten rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles, the lawsuit says.

Becerra argued in court papers that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any of these constitutional guarantees are even implicated by the challenged legislation, let alone violated by it. Possession of [large-capacity magazines] is not protected by the Second Amendment.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

ALSO

Gun control language tucked into California's budget bill, irking the NRA

Original post:
Federal judge blocks new California gun control law requiring disposal of large-capacity magazines - Los Angeles Times

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

See the original post here:
Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts - Heritage.org

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case involving the right to carry a firearm outside of one's home. California resident Edward Peruta had challenged a state lawlimiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause." Simply mentioning self-defense is not enough - San Diego policy requires residents to list specific threats they believe they're facing.

Although the right to carry has been a hot topic across the country, Peruta v. California did not interest at least four of the justices, so it will not be added to their docket at this time.

That really peeved off Justices Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the bench.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

Thomas went on to say that he and his colleagues are too removed from everyday American life to understand why this case is so important.

"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," Thomas added.

Newest Justice Neil Gorsuch joined on to Thomas's opinion.

Without the chance to be heard at the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings stands. In a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the San Diego restrictions were permissible.

New Requirements for Visa Holders as Partial Travel Ban Goes Into Effect

Read the rest here:
Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second Amendment Case - Townhall

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. The Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The aforementioned amendments are clear, at least to those without an agenda.

We offer these amendments to show the lack of logic regarding the decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court not to consider a challenge to a law in California which restricts the constitutional rights of Americans to carry a gun. California has what it called a good cause law, which means California residents must convince the state they have a valid reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Here is the problem, which is clearly evident when reading the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. In other words, it is not a right that is left up to individual states to recognize as they see fit.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The right of Americans to keep and bear arms is specifically a delegated power, which means states do not have the authority to gut the Second Amendment.

Californias law makes little sense anyway, regardless of the U.S. Constitution.

As of February, there were at least 11 states which had passed legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons without a permit. If the fears of those who want to destroy the Second Amendment are accurate, these 11 states should be a battleground. For the record, the state of Texas has had a concealed carry law for more than 20 years, and has had an open carry law since 2016. The Lone Star State has not returned to the stereotypical days of the wild west, when residents settled disputes with a shootout at high noon on Main Street.

Evidently, Californians cannot be trusted with firearms as much as residents of other states. (Sarcasm noted.)

What states such as California are doing is taking it upon themselves to determine how their residents exercise their constitutional rights contained in the Second Amendment. And a hodgepodge of gun laws based on the whims of the states ignores the Second Amendment.

The rest is here:
Editorial: Target the US Constitution - Amarillo.com

This article appears in the July 2017 issues of the Official Journals of the National Rifle Association.

The drumbeat of fake news continues as the elites disappointed by the 2016 election dedicate themselves to resisting the Trump administration.

Among their many false narratives is that Americans are no longer interested in firearms now that Barack Obama is out of the White House.

At least two big groups of people didnt get that memo.

One is comprised of the 2,045,564 Americans who were queried through the FBIs firearm background check database in April 2017. This was the second busiest April ever for that system. In fact, each month of Trumps presidency has seen over two million firearm-related background checks. Only in 2016, when Americans faced losing their Second Amendment rights forever, did the FBI run more checks during a January to April period.

The other group included the nearly 82,000 people who attended the NRAs Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta, Georgia in late April. This was our second-highest total of attendees ever. Fifteen acres of guns and gear on display at the Georgia World Congress Center said all that needed to be said about the vitality of Americas firearms industry.

But those werent the only encouraging signs that greeted the NRAs extended family reunion in the Peach State. Our Annual Leadership Forum drew an impressive line-up of speakers. Besides three sitting U.S. Senators (Georgias David Purdue, Alabamas Luther Strange, and Texas Ted Cruz), we heard from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott. Lt. Col. Allen West and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke provided a distinguished presence from the uniformed ranks. And rounding out the guest list were Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, former Major League Baseball great Adam LaRoche, and campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor.

But that was just the undercard, as it were. Because for only the second time in the NRAs history, we welcomed the sitting President of the United States (the last one before him being Ronald Reagan in 1983). For those of us who were on the front lines of the brutal 2016 election (and that included every NRA member present), it was not only an honor to have President Trump address the NRA, but one of the clearest possible lessons of the power the common person still holds in American democracy.

I began my remarks with a montage of film clips showing condescending figures from the political, media, and entertainment establishments dismissing Trumps chances of winning the election, contrasted with footage of the partnership forged between the NRA and Donald Trump. NRA members have always stood apart from the prevailing winds of elite opinion and political correctness to focus on the enduring values that have bound our country together from the beginning.

That resolve was never as evident or necessary as in 2016, when the fate of our country and the Second Amendment literally hung in the balance of the presidential contest. On the one hand was globalist and Second Amendment opponent Hillary Clinton, who claimed that the Supreme Court was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other was Donald Trump, who had a Second Amendment position paper on his campaign website that began, The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. At stake was which of them would appoint the Second Amendments tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time President Trump addressed the crowd in Atlanta, he had already made that appointment by filling the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat with another constitutional originalist, Neil M. Gorsuch. Once again, we have a majority of support on the Court for our right to keep a gun in our home for self-defense.

President Trump had many stirring things to say during his address. But the line all of us will remember most is when he assured the members of the NRA: you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

More than that, however, you the NRAs members came through for America and for the freedoms we hold dear. And American democracy and its elevation of the common man and woman came through for all of us.

As ever, the fight for Americas soul will continue. But that Friday in Atlanta showed with the utmost clarity it is one we can win.

View post:
A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA - NRA ILA

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a case about the boundaries of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, by saying it will not review a California self-defense law.

The petitioners in Peruta v. California who asked the Supreme Court to review the case called the controversy "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" left to come before the Supreme Court. The high court's action on Monday will leave that question unresolved.

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

"At issue in this case is whether that [Second Amendment] guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," Thomas wrote. "Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari."

He added, "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."

California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.

A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff's policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit's ruling will prevail.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

Paul Clement, an attorney who several conservatives hoped to see included on President-elect Trump's Supreme Court short lists when looking to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is listed as the counsel of record for the petitioners challenging the California policy and 9th Circuit decision.

See more here:
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case - Washington Examiner