U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Second Amendment Case

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Victory in the U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
NRA - Institute for Legislative Action
NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition to either summarily reverse or hear an appeal of the decision in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 25, 2014.

The Ninth Circuit decision upheld San Francisco ordinances requiring any firearm within the home not actually carried on the person to be in a locked container or disabled by a state-approved trigger lock and banning the sale of hollow point ammunition. In each case, the Ninth Circuit wrongly determined that while the ordinance “burdens” the “core” Second Amendment right of self-defense within the home, it does not entirely “destroy” it.

The court then wrongly applied a deferential form of “intermediate” scrutiny to the regulations and found they satisfied that test. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia (who wrote the landmarkDistrict of Columbia v. Heller opinion) penned a sharply critical dissent (see p. 11 at link) of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal.

The dissent noted, “Because it is impossible to ‘carry' a firearm on one's person while sleeping, for example, petitioners contended that the law effectively denies them their right to self-defense at times when their potential need for that defense is most acute.”

Justice Thomas emphasized that the Ninth Circuit decision was in “serious tension with Heller” and noted that the District of Columbia's very similar firearm storage law had been held by that case to violate the Second Amendment. Criticizing the Ninth's Circuit analysis of the burden, the dissent noted that a person suddenly awakened from sleep by an intruder faced a significant impairment to the right of self-defense by the necessity of having to negotiate the locks on the firearm or safe. “That delay,” Justice Thomas wrote, “could easily be the difference between life and death.”

The dissent also gave a rare glimpse into how two members of the five-justice majority in Heller view development of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the wake of that case.

According to Justice Thomas: “[N]othing in our decision in Heller suggested that a law must rise to the level of the absolute prohibition at issue in that case to constitute a ‘substantial burden' on the core of the Second Amendment right. And when a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, we have generally required a higher showing than the Court of Appeals demanded here.” The petition should have been granted, he stated, “to review this questionable decision” and “to reiterate that courts may not engage in this sort of judicial assessment as to the severity of a burden imposed on core Second Amendment rights.”

The petition should have been granted, Justice Thomas stated, “to review this questionable decision” and “to reiterate that courts may not engage in this sort of judicial assessment as to the severity of a burden imposed on core Second Amendment rights.”

For firearm and self-defense advocates, the Supreme Court's decision signals a disinterest by the high court in revisiting its Second Amendment jurisprudence. Lower federal courts have sustained Second Amendment challenges in the face of absolute prohibitions (for example, on shooting ranges, sales, or carrying for self-defense outside the home). Yet virtually any justification by a state or locality has been deemed sufficient for regulations falling short of an all-out ban on protected Second Amendment activity. This is so, moreover, even where the courts have grudgingly acknowledged that the regulation burdens self-defense, which the Supreme Court has made clear is at the heart of the Second Amendment.

To be sure, the most anti-gun jurisdictions in America remain willing to push the envelope, even with the considerable latitude they have been given by the courts. As a result, cases concerning a total ban on “bearing” arms for self-defense in public (for example, Peruta v. County of San Diego or Wrenn v. District of Columbia) may yet prove unavoidable, even for the increasingly gun-shy Supreme Court.

In the meantime, however, Thomas and Scalia's reproof to the Court provides rather cold comfort to liberty-loving Americans who are weary of the Second Amendment being treated as a second class right by the same imperious, activist judges who used to deny it provided any individual protection.

In the concluding paragraph of the dissent, Justice Thomas offered a final admonition: “We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

That is how the anti-gun legal establishment once had it, and anti-gun lawyers and jurists are clearly working to restore that dismal state of affairs.

Fortunately, the American people have always had more to say about the real fate of the Second Amendment and gun culture in America than the cloistered legal elite. Even when judges were dismissing the notion that the Second Amendment had anything to do with individuals, most Americans had relatively free access to and use of firearms. Indeed, gun owners throughout the world can only envy the freedom we in America have enjoyed throughout our history. Your NRA remains hard at work –in Congress, in state legislatures, in City Halls, and, yes, in the courts – to keep that heritage intact and to expand our precious freedoms.

The result in Jackson is yet another clear reminder of the importance of the 2016 elections. Our nation cannot afford to have another anti-gun president pushing anti-gun nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court.

With your help, liberty will prevail – because the future of our freedom depends on it.

About the NRA-ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

AmmoLand Join the NRA Banner
AmmoLand Encourages you to Join the NRA today!
  • 5 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Second Amendment Case

    1. If Scotus can not give a ruling on obvious infringement of the 2nd Amendment they need to step down. Being impartial to all factors is a requirement of being a Judge.

      1. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this, and members went as far as warning the 9th about this obvious attempt of infringement on that ruling…

    2. It is my sincere belief that the Ninth Circuit Justices have committed the crime of CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY, VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE and attempt to KNOWINGLY, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW!

      Personally, I’d name the Supreme Court Justices who failed to act to secure my liberties pursuant to their judicial DUTY too. Justices Thomas and Scalia excepted obviously as they joined in DISSENT HERETO.

      References:

      18 USC Sections 3, 4, 241, 242
      42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986
      14th Amendment to the US Constitution

      I need to look up the codes etc. that pertain to Violation of Oath and CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY.

      Here’s a few jurisprudence quotes that should apply:

      Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these U.S. is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law.”

      Murdock v Penn, 319 US 105:(1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it and attach a fee to it.”

      Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262:(1962) “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

      Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436: “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

      Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed.”

      Jones v. Counce 7-F3d-1359-8th cir 1993; Benitez v. Wolff 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993: “Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.”

      Owens v. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.”

      Boyd v. US, H6 US 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty.”

      Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996): “Eleventh Amendment [immunity] does not protect state [government] officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.”

      Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244:(1901) “It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutionaL jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to EXERT ITS FULL AUTHORITY TO PREVENT ALL VIOLATIONS of the principles of the Constitution.”

      16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117: 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117: “”Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them in determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are NOT at liberty to search for meanings BEYOND THE INSTRUMENT.” [emphasis mine]

      AND there are MANY, MANY MORE!

      But, apparently, I’m just “nuts.”

      1. Amen Diamondback , all the cases you presented , Im wondering why the NRA and others like them do not utilize those rulings to eliminate most of the gun legislation out there…..It is beyond my comprehention as to why rulings like Murdock vs Penn , and Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham are not the tip of the spear in backing down anti gun legislation …..

    Comments are closed.