Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a case about the boundaries of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, by saying it will not review a California self-defense law.

The petitioners in Peruta v. California who asked the Supreme Court to review the case called the controversy "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" left to come before the Supreme Court. The high court's action on Monday will leave that question unresolved.

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

"At issue in this case is whether that [Second Amendment] guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," Thomas wrote. "Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari."

He added, "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."

California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.

A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff's policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit's ruling will prevail.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. "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."

Paul Clement, an attorney who several conservatives hoped to see included on President-elect Trump's Supreme Court short lists when looking to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is listed as the counsel of record for the petitioners challenging the California policy and 9th Circuit decision.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case - Washington Examiner

SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment Conservative Review Over the past few years, we have chronicled a pattern developing in the lower courts on the Second Amendment since the Heller decision. Not that we needed the Supreme Court to affirm the right to self-defense, which predated the Constitution, but the ...

More here:
SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment - Conservative Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

John-Michael Seibler is a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundations Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

More:
Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts - Washington Times

The issue revolved aroundBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf ofDaniel Binderup. He pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee, receiving three years probation and a $300 fine.Since thecrime could have resulted in jail timeof over one yeartriggering a federal gun law blocks firearms possessionBinderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights.

The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderups favor and Obamas Department of Justice responded by seeking a Supreme Court review. The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands.

Following SCOTUS announcement, SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, saying:

The Third Circuit Courts favorableruling combined Binderups case withanother SAF case involvinga man named Julio Suarez. Hewas stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit.He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine. Asa result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail timeof more than one year. Neither man was ever incarcerated.

The pro-Second Amendment results ofBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney Generalwere accompanied by news that SCOTUS declined to hearPeruta v. California; a case revolving around Californias good cause requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Perutain hopes of securing a ruling as to whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

For now, the Second Amendment community is cheering the ruling inBinderup but remains pensive overPeruta.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:
SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors - Breitbart News

A Boston-area professor said last week a middle ground exists between protecting the Second Amendment and methods of reducing gun-related violence.

In Broadening the Perspective on Gun Violence: An Examination of the Firearms Industry, 19902015, Boston University School of Public Health professor Dr. Michael Siegel said he wanted to frame gun research in a different context.

Research on firearm violence tends to focus on two elements the host (i.e., victims of firearm violence) and the environment (i.e., gun policies), he said in the articles introduction, published Thursday. But little attention has been paid to the agent (the gun and ammunition) or the vector (firearm manufacturers, dealers, and the industry lobby).

According to federal data, firearms manufacturing in America tripled between 2000 and 2013 the last year Seigel studied.

In that year alone, manufacturers produced 4.4 million pistols, 4 million rifles, 1.2 million shotguns, 725,000 revolvers and 495,000 miscellaneous firearms, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Firearms manufacturing dipped 16 percent the following year to just over 9million produced.

[Manufacturers] have reinvented guns not as a recreational sport or tool but as a symbol of freedom and security, Siegel told ABC News Thursday.

Siegel said the increased manufacturing of high-caliber pistols, especially, points to a consumers growing interest in self-defense and a similar need for a new perspective on gun-related violence as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Ultimately, a better understanding of the products on the market may have implications for improving firearms as consumer products, such as fostering changes in design to increase safety or changes in corporate practices to better protect consumers, as has been done for tobacco products, the report concludes.

Siegel said the study, published last week in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, doesnt mean to imply gun owners should lose their right to bear arms, but rather society must create an effective way to weed out those more prone to violent acts.

They are not the enemy in public health, he said. There are ways to reduce gun violence while valuing gun owners values. It has been painted too long as mutually exclusive.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, reiterated the organizations long-standing opposition to viewing gun-related violence through a public health lens.

Guns are not a disease, he told ABC News. There is no vaccine or health intervention for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Go here to read the rest:
Researcher suggests gun related violence prevention, Second Amendment 'not mutually exclusive' - Guns.com