Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

[IVC]

I really, really hope I'm wrong about that. But as of now, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that suggests that I am.

I am suggesting that you're wrong .

[kcbrown]

I am suggesting that you're wrong .

LOL!!!

[IVC]

I agree that we have to wait for SCOTUS on many of these issues. It's relatively rare that we don't. Unfortunately, I'm forced by logic applied to what little evidence there is to conclude that no SCOTUS decision will be forthcoming.

Slightly off topic, but the SCOTUS today *denied* cert on five same sex marriage cases.

I wonder if this now implies that they are both hoplophobic *and* homophobic and that we're all going back into the closet...

[selfshrevident]

Slightly off topic, but the SCOTUS today *denied* cert on five same sex marriage cases.

I wonder if this now implies that they are both hoplophobic *and* homophobic and that we're all going back into the closet...

Yeah I was reading about this earlier. The thought that came to my mind immediately was all the carry cases they denied cert to, and wondering if we're seeing a parallel universe unfolding.

[CCWFacts]

Yeah I was reading about this earlier. The thought that came to my mind immediately was all the carry cases they denied cert to, and wondering if we're seeing a parallel universe unfolding.

Maybe in both cases (gay marriage and bear arms) they are not going to take a case until there is a large amount of legal work in the lower courts? Maybe they want to make sure all viable arguments have been made, and reviewed thoroughly? I can imagine that, in making big decisions with very long-term impacts, they want to get as much insight as they can before they do it. What do you think?

(IANAL so this may be ignorant speculation, but that never stops anyone on the Internet.)

[IVC]

^^^ That's a pretty good guess and that's what I'm trying to convince KC Brown...

[wireless]

I can't think of any federal court that upheld gay marriage ban after SCOTUS's first ruling. All five states were appealing because in each case those courts allowed gay marriage ban.

In carry cases we are seeing a clear split, and that's probably why SCOTUS delayed Drake for the few weeks that it did. I think after the 10th weighs in on the issue with Bonidy we might see them pick up a case. Possibly when Peruta and Palmer are finalized they will also be more inclined to take up a carry case.

What's most frustrating to me is that I think SCOTUS would take up a gay marriage case if we saw the same split that's currently in carry cases. I don't think they'd allow 1,2,3,4 to deny marriage equality while at the same time allowing 7,9 to accept marriage quality, and then deny cert.

[kcbrown]

Slightly off topic, but the SCOTUS today *denied* cert on five same sex marriage cases.

I wonder if this now implies that they are both hoplophobic *and* homophobic and that we're all going back into the closet...

Heh.

Has SCOTUS granted cert to any same sex marriage cases yet, and recognized the right accordingly?

If not, then we're talking about a right that SCOTUS has not yet recognized.

The right to keep and bear arms, however, has most certainly been recognized as of Heller and McDonald. It is the treatment of a newly-recognized right that I am concerned with here. How SCOTUS is treating that here differs from its treatment of newly-recognized rights in the past.


If SCOTUS has already recognized same-sex marriages as a right, then the fact that they've denied cert to these cases makes it comparable (if the cases are being appealed because the lower courts refuse to recognize the right) to how they're treating the 2nd Amendment, and I would then have to revise my hypothesis accordingly.


ETA: I see that all of the cases in question were ones where the right was upheld by the lower courts. That is a significant difference between these cases and ours. In ours, the right remains trashed until SCOTUS intervenes to the contrary. In theirs, the right remains upheld unless SCOTUS intervenes to the contrary. If protection of the newly-recognized right is what SCOTUS aims to achieve, then our situation is much more critical than the same-sex marriage situation.

Put another way, the problem is not that SCOTUS is refusing to intervene. The problem is that SCOTUS is refusing to uphold the right when it is being infringed upon.

[erik_26]

Maybe in both cases (gay marriage and bear arms) they are not going to take a case until there is a large amount of legal work in the lower courts? Maybe they want to make sure all viable arguments have been made, and reviewed thoroughly? I can imagine that, in making big decisions with very long-term impacts, they want to get as much insight as they can before they do it. What do you think?

(IANAL so this may be ignorant speculation, but that never stops anyone on the Internet.)

It is clear as day to me.

Gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter, is none of the governments business. Consenting adults to enter a civil union is all that should be required. After that, you go to your church or equivalent and have your own ceremony and call it whatever it is you want.

Gay or straight or any other type of marriage isn't a right.

The supreme court doesn't need to hear any case regarding firearms. Everything you need to know can be found in the bill of rights. It is very cut and dry. You have the right to bare arms without infringement.

[Maestro Pistolero]

The supreme court doesn't need to hear any case regarding firearms. Everything you need to know can be found in the bill of rights. It is very cut and dry. You have the right to bare arms without infringement.

This makes no sense to me. You must be speaking in idyllic terms, because there are more than a few instances in this country where the right is IN FACT infringed, and their Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld it (Kalchalsky in New York; Moore in In Maryland, for example).

Since the Supreme Court is the only legal recourse for citizens in districts that infringe, how can you possibly say the SCOTUS should not step in?

The constitution may be 'cut and dry' but the courts are far from it.

[bassplayer]

You have the right to bare arms without infringement.

Short sleeves forever!

Dan

[IVC]

Consenting adults to enter a civil union is all that should be required.

As long as I can sign this contract with my dad, I'm all for it.

I've got income, he's got assets - my tax bill goes down by more than half (progressive taxes), when he passes his assets are not inheritance, but a surviving spouse benefit so also tax free. I also get his social security. My "wife" does the same thing with her mom and the two of us have only church-recognized union, but not the state-recognized one which we don't need. That's a pretty good deal I'd support any time...

[erik_26]

This makes no sense to me. You must be speaking in idyllic terms, because there are more than a few instances in this country where the right is IN FACT infringed, and their Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld it (Kalchalsky in New York; Moore in In Maryland, for example).

Since the Supreme Court is the only legal recourse for citizens in districts that infringe, how can you possibly say the SCOTUS should not step in?

The constitution may be 'cut and dry' but the courts are far from it.

The only reason a lower courts ruling holds any ground is because the people allow it. Just because it is tolerated by most doesn't make it right.

I agree that is where the Supreme Court would step in. Ultimately, I don't believe they should have too. The people should drive the change and fight for themselves. The people should not accept unjust laws.

[erik_26]

As long as I can sign this contract with my dad, I'm all for it.

I've got income, he's got assets - my tax bill goes down by more than half (progressive taxes), when he passes his assets are not inheritance, but a surviving spouse benefit so also tax free. I also get his social security. My "wife" does the same thing with her mom and the two of us have only church-recognized union, but not the state-recognized one which we don't need. That's a pretty good deal I'd support any time...

Not my business. I don't think the Government should have any control over or the ability to tax assets that have already had taxes paid on them.

Again, another prime example of the people tolerating and allowing this to happen.

Just like the subsidizes provided to illegal aliens. We allow it to happen. It is not right to use your or my tax dollars to do anything other than secure our boarders.

[kcbrown]

The only reason a lower courts ruling holds any ground is because the people allow it. Just because it is tolerated by most doesn't make it right.

No, the reason is that the government enforces it at gunpoint, and most people would rather not risk their lives just to thwart a court decision, even one on this topic.

I agree that is where the Supreme Court would step in. Ultimately, I don't believe they should have too. The people should drive the change and fight for themselves. The people should not accept unjust laws.

What do you expect to happen instead? Law enforcement is going to enforce the law no matter how unjust or Unconstitutional. Do you expect the people to revolt? That'll get you military intervention on the side of the government.

Do you expect an armed insurrection to flare up? Such things usually end badly for the citizenry. We got lucky with the American Revolution.

Absent revolt and insurrection, exactly what do you expect people to do?