Mediaboss Marketing

Justice Clarence Thomas / Getty Images

BY: Stephen Gutowski June 26, 2017 3:15 pm

The Supreme Court denied the appeal of a California gun-carry case on Monday, leaving a lower court decision upholding the state's restrictive gun-carry law in place.

Peruta v. California dealt with a dispute over whether or not California's gun-carry laws are constitutional. In California, as in a handful of other deep-blue states, open carry of a gun in public is generally prohibited while concealed carry is allowed but only through a strict permitting process. The system governing the issuance of a concealed-carry permit, commonly called a "may issue" system, leaves the final decision on whether or not an otherwise-qualified citizen can obtain a permit up to a government official. Even if a citizen were able to pass the background check required under California's concealed-carry law and obtain the required training, he could still be denied a permit if the government official in charge of issuing them believes he doesn't have a "good cause" for wanting one. A generic desire to carry a gun for self-defense purposes is generally not considered a "good cause" under California's law.

A number of California residents who would otherwise qualify for a concealed-carry permit but were denied under the "good cause" clause of the law sued the state, claiming their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was being infringed upon. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun-rights organizations supported the suit.

A panel of Ninth Circuit judges first held in favor of the plaintiffs and found the "good cause" clause in combination with other parts of the law to be unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the full Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and sided with California by ruling the Second Amendment does not specifically protect the concealed carry of guns.

In a dissent from Monday's Supreme Court decision not to hear the case, Justice Clarence Thomas and new Justice Neil Gorsuch called the Ninth Circuit's decision "indefensible" and accused the Supreme Court of treating the Second Amendment as a "disfavored right"Thomas wrote the strongly worded dissent and Gorsuch joined him. The orders issued on Monday are among the first that Gorsuch has participated in.

The two took special exception to the Ninth Circuit's decision to focus only on whether concealed carry of a gun was constitutionally protected and not the broader question of whether California's effective ban on all forms of gun carry is constitutional.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote in the dissent. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. The en banc court's decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carryas opposed to the more general right to public carrywas untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State's regulatory scheme as a whole."

Thomas went on to say the Second Amendment likely does protect some form of public gun 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," he said.

The dissent went beyond the scope of the Peruta case, though, and complained that the Supreme Court has been reluctant to take any Second Amendment cases in recent years.

"The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," Thomas said in the dissent. "The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven yearssince March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. 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."

Thomas then suggested members of the Supreme Court, surrounded by armed security at almost every waking moment, may think Second Amendment rights are outdated and chastised that idea.

"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," he said. "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."

The NRA released a statement condemning the Supreme Court's decision not to hear Peruta v. Califonia.

"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," Chris Cox, the head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "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."

The gun-rights group said it would continue the legal battle for gun carry.

"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," Cox said. "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 the rest here:
Supreme Court Denies Appeal in California Gun-Carry Case - Washington Free Beacon

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits.

After postponing the order multiple times, the nations highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a good cause requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

What is this case about?

At issue in this case is concealed carry and whether a county can define good cause to carry a weapon outside of ones home as strictly as some California counties specifically San Diego do.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners reportedly attempted to obtain concealed carry permits in San Diego County, Calif. However, the sheriffs department which handles permit requests requires a specific good cause to obtain the permits, Fox News previously reported.

That good cause must be more specific than just a general concern for wellbeing; a person must list a precise fear, such as domestic violence or carrying a large amount of money.

What were other rulings?

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.

Whats next for this case?

The nations highest court hasnt always been so willing to take up Second Amendment cases, Law Newz reported earlier this month. And this particular case has been rescheduled multiple times.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

With the Supreme Court declining to review the case, the California law will remain in place.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
US Supreme Court declines to take up 2nd Amendment case: A look at the California law - Fox News

The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would not hear two key cases surrounding the Second Amendment.

One case centered on Californias concealed-carry law that allows sheriffs to require individuals applying for concealed-carry permits to cite a need for the permit, such as feeling threatened, according to The Washington Post.

The second case dealt with the federal law that bans felons from possessing guns, according toCNN.

In the California case, gun-rights advocacy group the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation filed a brief 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.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority, saying the Court should have taken the California case.

The Courts decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, Thomas wrote in his dissent. 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."

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court declines to hear two Second Amendment cases - The Hill

From Mondays opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch), dissenting from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California:

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.

Agree with it or disagree, but it strikes me as a powerful articulation of its position. (The other seven justices declined to hear the case, and thus left open the question whether the Second Amendment secures a right of law-abiding adults to carry guns outside the home a subject on which lower courts continue to be split; Thomas and Gorsuch were urging the court to hear the case.)

Read more:
'For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated' - Washington Post

The cycle of lethal police violence, community outrage, and legal proceedings that yield no consequences came around again last Friday in St. Paul, Minnesota. A jury acquitted a police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, of all three chargesone count of second-degree manslaughter and two counts of dangerous discharge of a firearmarising from the shooting death, a year ago, of Philando Castile.

On Tuesday, four days after the verdict, Minnesota state investigators made public the dash-cam video from Yanezs car. Officer Yanez had said that he saw Castile drive by, thought he resembled a suspect in a robbery case, and decided to pull him over. In the video, the officer can be heard calmly telling Castile that his brake light is broken, and asking to see his license and registration. Castile then says, also calmly, Sir, I have to tell you I do have a firearm on me. Listening to the audio, it seems reasonable to assume that Castile is informing the officer that he has a weaponfor which he turned out to have a valid permitto avoid trouble rather than to court it. Still, Yanez is prompted to place his hand on his own gun, and shortly afterward he shouts, Dont pull it out! Castiles actions cannot be seen in the video, but he and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was also in the car, along with her four-year-old daughter, tell Yanez that Castile isnt reaching for his gun; she later says that he was getting his identification from his wallet. Within seconds, the officer fires seven shots into the car. Two of the bullets hit Castile, who is heard to say, I wasnt reaching. He died half an hour later.

That video now serves as a tragic prequel to one that Reynolds live-streamed to Facebook, after the shooting, as she sat next to Castile in the front seat of his car. That videoan unnerving first-person testimony, in which she tells Yanez, with stunning composure, You killed my boyfriendwas viewed millions of times, and brought an inescapable notoriety to the case. Reynolds later told reporters that she and Castile had done nothing but what the police officer asked of us and added, of Castile, that nothing within his body language said kill me.

The decision in the Castile case differed from other, similar cases of police violence in that it highlighted a kind of divided heart of Second Amendment conservatism, at least with regard to race. David French, in National Review , called the decision a miscarriage of justice. He wrote, Castile was following Yanezs commands, and its simply false that the mere presence of a gun makes the encounter more dangerous for the police. It all depends on who possesses the gun. If hes a concealed-carry permit-holder, then hes in one of the most law-abiding demographics in America. Colion Noir, an African-American gun-rights activist who serves as the face of the N.R.A.s black-outreach campaign, also criticized the decision, writing in an online post that Yanezs mistakes cost Castile his life, and that covert racism is a real thing and is very dangerous. In the days after the shooting, the N.R.A. itself had offered only a tepid response, without mentioning Castiles name: The reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated. In the meantime, it is important for the NRA not to comment while the investigation is ongoing. Rest assured, the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known. After Yanez was acquitted, it said nothing at all. Noir, in his post, also questioned whether Yanez would have had the same reaction had a white motorist identified himself as armed. The same might be asked of the N.R.A.s non-reaction to the verdict.

The Black Lives Matter movement emerged, fundamentally, as a response to the disparate valuation that we place upon human lives. That is why the rejoinder all lives matter misses the point. In the hours following last weeks shocking shooting of Representative Steve Scalise and three others, in Alexandria, Virginia, the broad outpouring of concern reminded us of how society responds when people whose lives it values are harmed. In that sentiment, media coverage of the shootings did not automatically focus on controversial statements that Scalise has made or votes he has cast. To do so at such a moment seemed unbefitting.

Responses to the deaths of unarmed victims of police violence, by contrast, routinely feature the victims failures, shortcomings, and oversights. We were told, for example, that Eric Garner, who died after police on Staten Island put him in a choke hold, had been arrested on numerous occasions for petty offenses. Representative Peter King, of New York, pointed to the factor of Garners physical unfitness. If he had not had asthma and a heart condition and was so obese, almost definitely he would not have died, King said. Imperfect victims, as feminists who fought for stronger rape laws a generation ago understood, become perfect excuses in an unequal judicial system.

Yet there was some feeling that the verdict in Philando Castiles death would be different from the decisions in similar cases that had preceded it. That thought hinged on a belief that his status as a lawfully licensed gun-owner, his long-standing employment as a cafeteria manager at an elementary school, and his general lack of serious missteps might exempt him from the idea that his death was his own fault. And, in fact, less blame was levelled in this case: Castile had been stopped by the police fifty times in the thirteen years before his death, but that record was widely interpreted as evidence of racial profiling rather than of personal culpability.

There was also an evidentiary reason to believe that this case might turn out differently. A second officer, Joseph Kauser, who arrived at the scene before the shooting, when Yanez called for support, and approached Castiles car with his fellow-officer, testified that Castile was relaxed and calm during his exchange with Yanez. Kauser said that he believed that Yanez had acted appropriately, but that he himself had not drawn his gun, and he testified that he had not felt threatened. In the end, however, the result was indistinguishable from those in previous cases. There were no appeals for a less vitriolic dialogue, no impermeable hope that this time things would change. There was simply the numb reckoning that well all go down this road again.

Read the rest here:
Old Questions But No New Answers in the Philando Castile Verdict - The New Yorker