Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Case Challenging California Concealed Carry Law
BY Herschel Smith
6 years ago
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry laws, which give locally elected sheriffs discretion over issuing licenses for good cause.
Sacramento County residents James Rothery and Andrea Hoffman, who were denied licenses more than 10 years ago, argue the law deprives them of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for protection outside the home and violated the clause of the Constitution that affords everyone equal protection under the law.
The law allows each city and county the power to issue a written policy setting forth the procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license for good cause. It also allows retired police officers to obtain concealed carry permits without having to show “good cause.”
The residents argued the Sacramento County sheriff was issuing permits to friends, donors and supporters but excluding others.
But state officials said Rothery now has a concealed carry permit thanks to a new sheriff, who changed the definition of good cause after taking office in 2010. That definition required only a stated desire to have the ability to carry a weapon for purposes of self-defense, or defense of a family, to obtain a license. Hoffman has not reapplied for a permit since being denied in 2008.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court held the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.
The decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case keeps that ruling in place.
So the decision the SCOTUS made pertained to Mr. Rothery and that Ms. Hoffman could have ameliorated this situation with a simple re-application. Easy, right?
Not so fast. This doesn’t change the rest of California, nor does it ensure that their rights will be honored in perpetuity. That would require a SCOTUS decision, and they weren’t willing to give it. Do not entrust your rights to black-robed tyrants. You’ll be disappointed.
As I’ve said many times before, rights come from the Almighty and thus are as immutable as He is. The constitution is a covenant and contract (remember those classes in covenants and contracts, lawyers?). It means only that the state (county, state or FedGov) is or is not honoring the duly constituted covenant under which we’ve all agreed to live.
Thus it means that the state has declared war on its people. Broken covenants means being cursed by God. It’s that simple. You don’t break covenants without consequences.
|
|
On November 6, 2018 at 1:51 pm, Longbow said:
Leys hope the Court refused to hear the case because it isn’t ripe enough yet. This kind of thing might need to fester in the districts for a while yet.
On November 6, 2018 at 2:50 pm, scott s. said:
So, if someone convinces some judge that you are a “risk”, and you resist, it “proves” they were right.
On November 6, 2018 at 5:34 pm, Pat Hines said:
The lack of Cert by the SCOTUS indicates that the so-called four conservative judge didn’t fulfill their supposed “originalist” position.
It only takes four justices to grant Cert, so the newest Justice didn’t vote as the NRA was sure he would.
On November 6, 2018 at 7:36 pm, LP said:
“Thus it means that the state has declared war on its people.”
Once the state stops being your advocate it will become your adversary! Something somebody told me a long time ago…
On November 6, 2018 at 7:46 pm, LP said:
“You don’t break covenants without consequences”
Judgement comes to town….
On November 7, 2018 at 6:32 am, Matt said:
I’m no fan of that court, but Thomas did get one thing right when he said that the 2nd is becoming a disfavored right in that cases around it are declared refused to be heard at a very disproportionate rate.