Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Several 2nd Amendment Cases

[LAGC]

The Supreme Court late last month declined petition to take up more Second Amendment cases. A news release I received today from the Michel and Associates law firm (that does not seem available yet on its web site dedicated to gun law) explains what was at stake. It also discusses other Second Amendment cases that people have tried, and failed, to take all the way to the Supreme Court since 2008's Heller case created a brand-new landscape for weapons possesion law:
..
..
Williams v. State (Maryland)....asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry or transport a registered handgun outside the home. Mr. Williams was appealing his conviction for possessing a handgun in public without the required state permit allowing him to do so.

United States v. Masciandaro...involved a man convicted of violating the federal prohibition on carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in vehicles in National Parks after he was found asleep in his vehicle with a loaded handgun in a national park. He sought review from the Supreme Court of whether that prohibition violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms; asking the high court, like the petitioner in Williams, whether the right extends beyond the home.
..
..
While you might think these decisions on the Court's part to not hear these Second Amendment cases means it's reluctant to reconsider the Amendment at all, that's not quite right:

Despite the of certiorari denials in all the aforementioned Second Amendment cases, the fact that the Supreme Court has been requesting responses in these cases shows the Justices are paying unusually close attention to the Second Amendment issue. Of the roughly 8,000 petitions for review filed with the Supreme Court every year, only in a few hundred cases does the Court request a response from the opposing party. When the Court requests a response brief, it is a strong sign that the Court is interested in hearing argument in that case. And, such a request increases the probability that the Court will grant oral argument by roughly 9 times, from 0.9% to 8.6%....
..
..
(more)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/supreme-court-refuses-hear-several-2nd-amendment-cases

Wow. It almost sounds as if the SCOTUS is telling the government: you can't restrict guns inside the home, but you can restrict the hell out of guns in public. And so what if the government restricts guns to people based off of misdemeanor convictions? And tough luck on getting Heller and McDonald retroactively applied...

And some people think this is a "pro-gun" court.

[Atypical Liberal]

1. It's just going to take some time.

We've just now gotten to the point where the Supreme Court is weighing in on the right to keep and bear arms in the home.

Especially with the precedent set already in most places by the requirement to have a permit to carry a firearm in public, it should not be surprising that the Court is reluctant to liberalize the laws of firearms in public just yet.

I suspect it is just a matter of time.

[Hoyt]

2. Both Heller and McDonald are at best about home possession -- as it should be.

You are exactly right: ". . . . . . you can restrict the hell out of guns in public."

We need to keep the pressure on legislators to do just that.

While I do care about the types and number of guns one can possess in their home, I'm much more concerned about those who tote them around in public.

[ileus]

3. We're all concerned about totin' around in public...we need to keep the pressure

on legislators to assure we can keep and hopefully expand that right.



I also care about the types and numbers citizens can possess in their homes. I don't really see much need for anything above a 50 cal, and a tax on full autos isn't that bad. As for the #'s I'd like to see prices stay low so we can continue to expand our fine collections at whatever pace our budgets allow.

[Hoyt]

5. I like seeing people sensible about collecting guns. Unfortunately, people do become addicted to

lethal weapons for some reason.

Since we are talking about things we'd like to see -- I'd like to see part of the background check determine how many so-called "assault weapons" a potential gun purchaser already owns. If it's over some number, I think they should be flagged for a psychological evaluation before approving the purchase of another one. Not unlike a bartender having the responsibility to tell a drunk that the bar won't sell them anymore because they are a danger to themselves and society.

[ellisonz]

6. I think gun hoarding...

...is going to become an increasingly more common problem. You're going to see the bomb squad having to clear people's homes with regularity.

Hoarding is a disease...

[ileus]

9. Guns aren't bombs you know, anyone that can point the muzzle away from their body

can clear a home of firearms...

Why would people need their homes cleared of firearm collections anyway?


Hoarding is a disease when you can't find dead animals within your home. Or when there is no clear direction of egress.

[ellisonz]

10. lol

Well I hope you volunteer...

Google "gun hoarder arrested with explosives"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. done --

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hUyijZPjkoAqLhXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=ush-mailn&p=%2Bgun+hoarder+arrested+with+explosives&fr2=sp-qrw-orig-top&norw=1

[petronius]

14. The use of "hoarding" in a news article is unrelated to any useful

clinical definition of "hoarding." If you want to use terms like addiction and hoarding, which have real psychological meanings, then your evidence should relate to those meanings.

Despite the catchy headlines, I can't recall ever hearing of a legitimate case of hoarding or addiction that involved firearms. (Not that it doesn't happen, but it seems to happen vastly less frequently than with cats or something...)

We see insistence on these misused medical terms in this forum rather frequently (perhaps not from you, particularly), and it's nothing more than a weak attempt to discredit gun ownership by erroneously linking it with mental illness. Such ploys add nothing to a civil discourse, and if anything are an insult to people who truly suffer psychological impairments, by trivializing real conditions.

[ellisonz]

15. A lot of that might have to do with lack of reporting.

1. The DSM defines hoarding as a mental disorder.

2. Guns are no different than any other object.

3. I think you're over-reading.

4. The media is using such terms.

5. I think it's useful to talk about a behavior such as this in relation to gun control policy.

[petronius]

16. There are colloquial and clinical definitions of hoarding - which one

do you think should be talked about?

Media usage is all colloquial, in the sense of "having more of Item X than the average person thinks is 'normal'" - I see no value in discussing guns or anything else from that perspective; who cares if Person Y has an above-average number of Item X?

However, I think the insistence on such terms here at DU is meant to imply a clinical meaning, without any foundation for doing so. It's a transparent attempt to stigmatize gun ownership as abnormal/unhealthy, to avoid having to explain why gun ownership should be limited.

If there is really a problem with clinical hoarding of firearms - and as I said I've seen no suggestions of that whatsoever - it should be talked about in the context of mental health treatment, but with no evidence of any resulting problems I can't see how it relates to firearms policy. After all, there's nothing in a hoarding disorder that would suggest a propensity toward violence...

[ellisonz]

17. Both. n/t

[petronius]

18. OK, why(x 2)? nt

[rl6214]

20. Every hoarder I have ever seen has crap stacked to the ceiling and can barely move in the home

My neighbor behind me was a hoarder and she had a trail thru her house about a foot wide and everything was stacked to the ceiling. Every room in her house. she was removed from the house so they could clean it out. Two years later, she had 13 cats and 17 kittens in her back yard, all of them wild. I rescued two of the kittens, one other died and one had to be put down when I took it to the vet. Animal control picked up the rest.

With all that said, I have never seen anyone with guns stacked to the ceiling, unable to move around the house because there were so many guns. Just because someone collects something does not make them a hoarder. I collect stamps, coins, GI Joes, Football and Baseball cards but am not a hoarder. Each collection is neatly organized, labeled, catelogged and stored. I also collect curio and relic firearms, mostly from the countries that participated in WW2. All are stored in gun safes, all will be handed down to my sons when I die.

[slackmaster]

7. Hoyt's authoritarian wet dreams show boundless imagination

My gun collection is limited by budget and available safe storage capacity

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. I like seeing people sensible about self-expression. Unfortunately, people do become addicted to

lethal opinions for some reason.

Since we are talking about things we'd like to see -- I'd like to see part of the background check determine how many so-called "assault opinions" a potential
poster already holds. If it's over some number, I think they should be flagged for a psychological evaluation before approving the posting of another one. Not unlike a bartender having the responsibility to tell a drunk that the bar won't sell them anymore because they are a danger to themselves and society.

[tortoise1956]

11. Okay, show me the peer-reviewed studies that show the existence of lethal weapon addiction...

Hoyt, your line of unreasoning is getting old and stale. How about carrying on a rational, fact-based debate on the subject?

[Hoyt]

12. Believe or not, Tortoise, this is politics. Things are not always peer reviewed, like NRA BS and

other gun culture propaganda. Also, opinions from people who can't venture out of their house without a gun are hardly objective.

[rl6214]

21. "Hoyt, your line of unreasoning is getting old and stale."

As shown here:

"people who can't venture out of their house without a gun "

And here:

"NRA BS and other gun culture propaganda"

[Hoyt]

22. Also old are those who believe they need a gun when they go in parks, restaurants, churches, etc.

Worse, are those who cheer every time some fool buys another gun or plays judge, jury, Jesus and executioner by shooting someone fleeing.

Besides, if you don't like it -- don't read it.

[rl6214]

23. "Also old are those who believe they need a gun when they go in parks, restaurants, churches, etc."

WTF?

You do know concealed carry is a fairly recent occurance don't you? You should try to keep up.

"Besides, if you don't like it -- don't read it."

I was just quoting the other poster, besides, it's hard to tell whether your posts are more like watching a train wreck, you just can't turn away or being entertained by the

[rl6214]

24. He can't, all he has are his feelings...

[cohee100]

25. Assault weapon?

What is an assault weapon? Where does one buy them?

[rl6214]

19. "We need to keep the pressure on legislators to do just that."

And what exactly are YOU doing to make sure that happens?

[PavePusher]

4. The cases they've rejected have not been well crafted or are of uncertain legal grounds.

Wait until Gura's cases work through the system.