Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Interesting Pew survey | Main | Thoughts on the denials of cert. »

Peruta: cert denied

Posted by David Hardy · 26 June 2017 09:56 AM

Order here. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissent from the denial, suggesting that the combination has replaced Thomas and Scalia as two Justices who want to take cert and expand the Court's reading of the 2A: unfortunately, it takes four to grant and five to win. As always with a Thomas-written opinion, the dissent is clearly reasoned and written.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case. 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."

"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. 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.' .... The most natural reading of this definition encom­passes public carry. 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."

"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."

"The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case re­ flects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

"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 anti­ quated 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."

4 Comments | Leave a comment

boxty | June 26, 2017 11:46 AM | Reply

What the hell is wrong with Roberts and Alito?

kukuforguns | June 26, 2017 12:47 PM | Reply

[Expletive deleted]!

CDR_D | June 26, 2017 3:34 PM | Reply

Perhaps this cert denial is not so bad for the time being. If the 4 libs thought they could win, they would have provided the votes to hear it.

There is a challenge to California's ban on open carry working its way on up, so how that goes could provide impetus for hearing the issue later. The 9th CCA en banc opinion stressed that they were not addressing open carry in *Peruta*.

Anonymous | June 27, 2017 7:12 PM | Reply

Agreeing with CDR_D. Let's get another solid RKBA vote on the bench. Harder to reverse a bad SCOTUS ruling than, well, anything.

In fact, I'm thinking advances in personal liberty have been in spite of SCOTUS rulings rather than because of the.

Leave a comment