SCOTUS Passes on Chance to Set 2A Ruling Right

[JESS1344 508]

GUYS,

   JUST FIRED THIS SUGGESTION OFF TO FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CO. WE'LL SEE WHAT COMES OF IT.

 

   JESS1344

 

GUYS,

A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets."   

 

SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CO. SHOULD BE SHIPPING MASS QUANTITIES OF THEIR "GUARD DOG" AMMO TO COMMIEFORNIA.

 

    PERHAPS EVEN EXPAND THE SELECTION PAST THE PRESENT 9MM/40/45 CALIBERS, HMMMMM?

 

   THEY COULD REALLY CLEAN UP, SALES NUMBERS-WISE.

 

   PERHAPS EVEN RUN A WEEK-LONG "SCOTUS SALE" AT DISCOUNTED PRICES, IN "HONOR" OF THEIR DECISION, EH?

 

   NOTHING QUITE LIKE A GOOD SHARP STICK INNA EYE, RIGHT?

 

   FROM TODAY'S "PATRIOT POST":

 

   JESS1344

SCOTUS Passes on Chance to Set 2A Ruling Right

Not exactly profiles in courage, but the Supreme Court declined to review two lower court rulings upholding San Francisco's draconian gun control laws.

 

The Associated Press reports , "The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks.

 

 A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has 'no sporting purpose' and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets."

 

 Of course, in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a requirement about locking down a firearm in the home, saying the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

 

 So by declining to hear this case, the justices are allowing a patchwork of wrong interpretations of its ruling to stand.

 

As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it."

 

Furthermore, they're passing on an opportunity to clarify the most important point of all: The Second Amendment is not "for sporting purposes."

 

 The ban on hollow-point ammunition is beyond asinine, but the justices can't be bothered to fire anything but blanks.

Edited June 14, 2015 by JESS1344

[HB of CJ 1,263]

I was taught that if only one case came up through the lower Fed courts, the Supreme Court had the option of not hearing the case.  But, if duplicate or multiple cases or very similar two or more cases come up through the system, then the Supreme Court MUST hear the case.  Is this the situation here, or did the SC have the chicken shit option of just wimping out and not hearing it?  I dunno.  HB of CJ old coot

 

One would think that the similarity of the cases regarding the right of the people to be armed in their homes would have DEMANDED that the SC hear the case.  But they choose not to.  Curious.  Seems to me our fabric of government is beginning to break down.  Out of control government officials, both elected and appointed and a court system that for some unknown but suspected reason is not doing their job?

 

Some body who knows more about this please tell us it ain't so.  We still have the ballot box.  And ... thin ice here ... who or what would or could have the power or influence to POSSIBLY dictate to the SC that they should hear or not hear a case?  What kind of power could they have?  How would they choose to employ such power and control?  This might be like an iceberg ... 90% of what we see is below the water and unseen?

Edited June 9, 2015 by HB of CJ

[gunfun 3,931]

That's not quite how it works, but google "ripeness doctrine" and you will probably find a fairly clear explanation of when SCOTUS will decline to take a case.