U.S. Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge to California Gun Restrictions

[DonViejo]

Source: U.S. News & World Report/Reuters


Nov. 5, 2018, at 2:22 p.m.

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court for a second straight year refused on Monday to hear a challenge to California's limits on carrying handguns in public, dealing another setback to gun rights proponents.

The court's action underscored its continued reluctance to step into a national debate over gun control roiled by a series of mass shootings including the one at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11 people on Oct. 27. It has not taken up a major gun case since 2010.

The justices, declining to hear an appeal by two gun owners, on Monday left in place a November 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding California's restrictions.

California law generally bars people from carrying firearms outside the home but local sheriffs can issue permits to carry a concealed gun in public places if applicants show "good cause." It is left up to individual sheriffs to determine what constitutes "good cause."

Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-11-05/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-challenge-to-california-gun-restrictions

---

The very last sentence of the above article:

The court did not disclose how individual justices voted in the California case.

[BigmanPigman]

1. Why didn't it release the names of the justices and how they voted?

[lagomorph777]

2. Because at least one Russiapublican on the bench voted against the NRA,

and doesn't want to get shot.

[BigmanPigman]

3. Oh, I get it now.

That never occurred to me.

[rurallib]

5. when they get bought, they are supposed to stay bought

[Johnyawl]

4. Please, they wouldn't get shot...

...they'd have Russian heart attack.

[lagomorph777]

6. Trip over a baseball bat several hundred times until dead.

Or suffer accidental poisoning with an incredibly rare Russian compound.

[Johnyawl]

7. it's been known that falling off a 9th floor balconey...

...will induce the russian heart attack.

[onenote]

8. Because how individual justices voted on petitions for certiorari are rarely disclosed

It takes four justices to grant a petition for cert and if there aren't four votes to grant the petition, the denial is simply noted with no indication as to which justices, if any, would have granted the petition. The only exception is where a justice actually writes a dissent to the denial of the petition, which rarely happens.

No one is hiding anything. This was a strange case and I wouldn't be surprised if none of the justices wanted to hear it.

[BigmanPigman]

9. Thank you...I don't know all the procedures

and the official process of the SCOTUS" decisions and votes. I am learning more and more about civics and our govt each day.

[J_William_Ryan]

10. The Supreme Court

is likely not going to hear this case unless another circuit court of appeals rules to strike down a state’s may issue licensing policy, where the 9th would be in disagreement with one of its sister courts – that seems to be the only situation when the Court grants cert in cases similar to this, where the issue is considered by the Court to be ripe for review.

The problem is that there are very few states with may issue licensing policies, most states being shall issue, or have no license requirement at all.

The Court may also be content to allow Second Amendment jurisprudence to continue to evolve at the state level.