Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > SCOTUS Declines Gun Law Cases

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2014, 03:34 PM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,198
Liked 1984 Times on 1066 Posts
Likes Given: 2956

Default SCOTUS Declines Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear three gun law cases. IMO: The NRA case challenging the Texas law was the wrong fight at the wrong time.

Quote:
The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public.

The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21.

The third case was on the narrow question of whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms. The challenge to a federal law that restricts the interstate transport of guns, and a related Virginia law, were filed by several District of Columbia residents who wished to obtain guns via neighboring Virginia.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-challenges-gun-laws-143850213.html
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 02-24-2014, 05:25 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 2,718
Liked 2226 Times on 1003 Posts
Likes Given: 2162

Default

How is that the wrong fight at the wrong time? The federal govt. has no problem arming 18 year olds to fight wars they don't want to win. You can vote at 18. You can enter into legal contracts at 18. If they aren't mature enough to carry a weapon until 21 then stop letting them vote and stop letting them join the military until 21. It's a far worse crime on humanity to put a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car.

__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
5
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 06:38 PM   #3
Retired
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
danf_fl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 10,061
Liked 2658 Times on 1549 Posts
Likes Given: 1178

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
How is that the wrong fight at the wrong time? The federal govt. has no problem arming 18 year olds to fight wars they don't want to win. You can vote at 18. You can enter into legal contracts at 18. If they aren't mature enough to carry a weapon until 21 then stop letting them vote and stop letting them join the military until 21. It's a far worse crime on humanity to put a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car.
That was the cry in the late '60s and early '70s when Vietnam was a nightmare for the US. The government relented and allowed drinking at the age of 18. But when those who were 18 demonstrated that they were too immature to handle it, the age was raised again.

My generation and my children's generation have to prove that they are responsible parents. And if things like what is shown by participants of "Youtube" demonstrate maturity level, then I see no hope.
__________________

Amendment II:
"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."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)

danf_fl is online now  
6
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 06:40 PM   #4
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
chloeshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,285
Liked 1781 Times on 926 Posts
Likes Given: 358

Default

the SCOTUS has all the will in the world to keep liberal agenda items front and center. Go figure!

Are they saying these are 'state's rights' issues by declining to hear these cases? If so, they can be setting as precedent for shelving darn near ALL firearms-related cases

But when it comes to crap like Obama-care, they are comfortable shoving that straight down the entire nation's throat. like I said: Go figure!

__________________
leave the cannoli - take the gun
chloeshooter is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 06:45 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 2,718
Liked 2226 Times on 1003 Posts
Likes Given: 2162

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danf_fl View Post
That was the cry in the late '60s and early '70s when Vietnam was a nightmare for the US. The government relented and allowed drinking at the age of 18. But when those who were 18 demonstrated that they were too immature to handle it, the age was raised again.

My generation and my children's generation have to prove that they are responsible parents. And if things like what is shown by participants of "Youtube" demonstrate maturity level, then I see no hope.
Again if they aren't mature enough then stop recruiting and stop letting them vote. Can't have it both ways.
__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 07:01 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,124
Liked 1974 Times on 1172 Posts
Likes Given: 423

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
Again if they aren't mature enough then stop recruiting and stop letting them vote. Can't have it both ways.
I'm ok with that. Right now young adults are living with their parents longer, than they ever have. I'd at least like them to be able to read and understand a ballot, and understand the penalties for voting stupid.

With military down-sizing, narrowing the age range could be auseful approach. By 21, enlistees may be more firmly decided when they sign up.

I notice that the Sailors that I get who are over 20 tend to be more mature than those who came in straight out of high-school. Those who had a job are even better performers. Those who ballance some college and a job, are some of my best.
__________________
SSGN_Doc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 07:27 PM   #7
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gatoragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North GA. Back home in Dixieland.
Posts: 3,388
Liked 1160 Times on 648 Posts
Likes Given: 469

Default

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Based upon the healthcare ruling, this is a blessing in disguise for firearms enthusiasts.

__________________
Gatoragn is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 07:51 PM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,198
Liked 1984 Times on 1066 Posts
Likes Given: 2956

Default

Quote:
How is that the wrong fight at the wrong time?
In two previous rullings that went our way the SCOTUS said that "reasonable restrictions" on gun rights are legal. The NRA put the Attorney General of TX, a pro-gun state, on the spot by having to defend a Texas law.

From the Heller decision:

Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 10:41 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,198
Liked 1984 Times on 1066 Posts
Likes Given: 2956

Default

One case remains before SCOTUS. That case is Drake v. Jerejian, formerly Drake vs Filko. Its about the NJ prohibition on concealed carry by all but the rich, famous and politically connected. There is an appeals court split between the 3rd circuit court ruling that upheld the NJ "may issue" law and the 9th circuit court ruling that CA "may issue" is unconstitutional. We may have something going here.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...ent-gun-cases/

__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 11:32 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
wittmeba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: The state for Lovers
Posts: 1,097
Liked 573 Times on 324 Posts
Likes Given: 722

Default

Note who sponsors this blog site.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/court-denies-gun-rights-cases/#more-205497


From the Reuters site:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224

__________________
NRA Member - Over 5,000,000 strong!
Criminals don't discriminate. They will attack anywhere!

~ Holsters ~

Never forget these important words:
We the People...
America, take back your country!

Last edited by wittmeba; 02-24-2014 at 11:41 PM.
wittmeba is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Viewpoint On SCOTUS PanBaccha Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 08-30-2012 08:50 PM
This is what the scotus ruling means to you opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 33 07-02-2012 11:50 PM
FBI Struggles With SCOTUS GPS Ruling alsaqr Politics, Religion and Controversy 24 04-02-2012 12:57 AM
SCOTUS Reins in FBI alsaqr Legal and Activism 10 03-08-2012 02:08 PM
SCOTUS to take another gun case Yunus Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 10-02-2009 10:32 AM