What is the Supreme Court good for?

Reciprocity!

Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions - Washington Times:
(June 26, 2017)

Second Amendment advocates stung by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a closely watched gun rights case vowed Monday to pursue litigation as long as it takes to get the justices to affirm the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public.

I'm a bit conflicted, personally, about this issue.   Second Amendment aside, I am aware that criminals (and those with criminal intent) will carry a firearm any time, any place, and for whatever reason suits their purpose.

Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same ability to do so, without facing harassment by Law Enforcement Officers?   Do Californians think that by denying Constitutional rights to ordinary people, they will eliminate the use of firearms by their {HUGE!} Criminal element?

Here is a Case Study, and I swear I am not making this up:

Joe Bfetznikcke (pronounced: "Brown") from down the block isn't the one who is robbing passers-by with a pistol.   He has a clean record; no arrests, and he mows the lawn in front of his suburban home every week, rain or shine.  He's a good citizen and a good neighbor.

He also mows the lawn of his next door neighbors: Scherputz (pronounced "Frank" who hasn't worked in 20 years but buys a case a beer every day and when the wind is right the air reeks of  chemical funes; and Judi (pronounced "Scheuddinskiavich") who has a lot of boy friends who only seem to visit her once a week.  Each.   She has no visible means of support, but drives a Mercedes.

Joe has other neighbors who are not quite as "socially aware", and who all have a criminal record; he wants to defend their families, but he's not "physical".  So he mows their lawns, too.
Joe's a schmuck.   But he's OUR SCHMUCK!

Joe works in one of those business park buildings in a computer development business, and he's a geek.  He lives on potato chips and ZAP! Cola, and couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag.

In fact, if a paper bag wanted to take his  (unsecured) parking spot at his place of employment, Joe would back out and park his 1997 Ford in the "NoseBleed" section of the parking lot.

He parks his car in the company parking lot before dawn, and leaves after dusk.   He is a hard worker, a good family man.

He is entirely defenseless, and the Bad Guys know this.  They have robbed and assaulted his co-workers regularly, and Joe is only thankful that he hasn't been targeted.  Yet.

But he can't get a permit to own and carry a firearm (even though he has taken all the 'right' courses, and he feels vulnerable).   Why?  Because he has "No Good cause " to be awarded a Concealed Handgun license.

 He has never been personally threatened, the police haven't arrested anyone for assaulting his co-workers (which doesn't mean they haven't been assaulted, robbed, beaten, battered, abused and raped) but it was not JOE who was the target.  Yet.

Joe would like to carry a gun.  He has bought a pistol, taken the classes, works out at the range AND the gym on a weekly basis, but since he has not received a specific threat, he can't legally carry a gun.

Despite several applications which Joe has submitted, the local Sheriff has not yet decided that Joe has "Good Cause" to carry a gun.  And since the sheriff is the sole arbiter of who does or does not "deserve" a license to carry, Joe is defenseless.

So what's Joe going to do?  Wait until he gets mugged?  Or should he break the local laws because he's pretty sure it's just a matter of time because he lives in a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD where crime is unstoppable by the police.

California is one of the "Hold Out" states which cleave to their ant-gun gods .... liberal assemblymen and other politicians who hate the idea that law-abiding citizens might legally carry firearms in protection of themselves, their families, their community and their property.

The sheriff in his county is a "May Issue" kind of guy, and he cannot imagine any reason why Joe might want to carry a gun.   That's his personal opinion.  Of course, the sheriff carries a gun, and he works in an office where everyone carries a gun .. including his sultry blond secretary, Schuerrienaughe. (Pronounced: "Jill"; she's Irish).

The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs.

But the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare that a standard of responsibility which works for 'most' states might be permitted in 'all' states, is reluctant to dip its collective toes in the boiling pot of political acid which is the Gun Control/Gun Rights controversy.

 The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs. Gun owner Edward Peruta, of San Diego County, brought the case after he sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but was denied a concealed carry license in 2009 because he was unable to show good cause.

Yes I wiped myself thoroughly when I finished this parable.

Kalifornia's "Good Cause" ruling odious

On June 9, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange denounced the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for ruling against carrying guns concealed outside the home.

Imagine that ... Alabama standing up to California on Gun Rights.

Actually, the Ninth Circuit Court covers the West Coast plus "others". *

In a way, I wish the Nutty Ninth was populated by some justices who recognize the Supreme Court rulings of Macdonald (overturn municipal gun bands, 2nd Amendment applies to individuals)   and Heller  (right to have guns in home, in immediately usable status) by the Supreme court.

These decisions have been subsequently interpreted to imply that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to BEAR arms .. which means to carry them in public.

It's one thing to defend "State's Rights" in the context of Federal laws; but it's another thing to defend State's Rights when they conflict with a Constitutional Right (eg: The Second Amendment).

I think it's time that the Second Amendment be applied to all states equally, with the most 'liberal' interpretation be applied to all states; full acceptance of CHL licenses in every state, and carry laws standardized to at least CHL owners to carry in every state without fear of persecution.

The Second Amendment is shaping to be the 21st Century's version of the anti-segregation policies of President Eisenhower in the 50's and 60's, and the Abortion policies of more recent years.

Obviously, these are issues which were not considered 'issues' in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the "newer" importance of these re-interpretation of Constitutional Rights has led to some confusion about States Right vs the Constitutional Rights.

The clarifying factor may be that the Constitutional Rights have been applied to protect the rights of the individual citizen; States Rights were being (at the time of those controversies) to allow some 'activities' to some Americans, while denying the same rights to other Americans:

"Separate, but Equal"

In the Eisenhower era, the Supreme Court ruled that rights to education, marriage, etc. could not be regulated by State fiats based on race.

"Abortion Rights"

In more recent years (ca 1992), the Supreme Court ruled (see Roe vs Wade, et al) that a woman's right to have an abortion must apply equally to every state, regardless of the state in which state the woman applied for the medical procedure.

Neither of these Supreme Court decisions were universally popular, but they did have the effect of standardizing the Rights of the individual across state lines.  Abortion is a good example; it should not be necessary for a woman to cross state lines to access the same rights which are illegal in her home state, but legal in another state.

"Gun Control"

The Issue De Jure is Gun Control, and we have seen far too many examples of a person travelling between states with a firearm which may be legally carried in one state, but falling afoul of the laws of another state.

Three Ways Alito Defends the 2nd Amendment

The NRA is not perfect, and sometimes they are just a little bit too sensitive.  It's not "A Guy Thing",
so their opinion is often subject to some other opinions.  Which I'm happy to provide.

NRA-ILA | High Court Opinion Hardly the “Stunning” Reaffirmation of Heller Some Portray It to Be:

Significantly, Justice Alito’s opinion not only argues that the Massachusetts stun gun ban is clearly unconstitutional under Heller, it does so in a way that defeats the reasoning of prior lower court decisions upholding so-called “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans.  He states, for example, that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes” and that if “Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Alito also admonishes that a state cannot use relative numbers to establish that a weapon is “unusual” when large numbers (in the case of stun guns, “hundreds of thousands”) are already in use by private citizens for defensive purposes. Finally, Alito preempts the argument that some popular arms can be banned as long as others remain available: “the right to bear other weapons is ‘no answer’ to a ban on the possession of protected arms.”

I don't understand what the NRA had in mind when they posted this , but I think I disagree with the NRA analysis, because I believe they haven't evaluated Justice Alito's opinion in a "practical" context.   Here's how I interpret Justice Alito's opinion:

(1)  Guns are dangerous.  They were conceived, designed and built to be dangerous.  To consider guns as anything less than a 'dangerous weapon' is to relinquish them to the trash-heap of errata.

Here, Justice Alito acknowledges the lethality of guns, accepts it as a fact of life, and dismisses any arguments that firearms should be considered in any other context.

(2) Given the first argument, it logically follows that when anyone attempts to define one class of firearm as 'more lethal' than another, it is a fallacious attempt to impose restrictions based on trivial issues.

Is one gun capable of making a person more dead than the next gun?  Although he is too polite to say so, Alito dismisses such arguments as pompous pedantry.

(3) Alito accepts and affirms that the Second Amendment is not limited, and that attempts to limit its scope are antithetical to the Constitution.

When the argument is that 'okay, we will let you have flintlock pistols, because the Second Amendment says we have to give you SOMETHING .. but we won't give you automatic pistols because we don't have to .. nanny nanny wa wa and go screw yourself!'  Alito says that this is juvenile justice and puerile pedantry.     Essentially, Alito is saying that ... 'if you're going to allow the common man to possess arms for whatever purpose, it's insanity to force his descent to the 'least common denominator'.  Rather, allow him access to firearms which are at least equal to the foes against which he might find himself'.

Okay, I made up all the quotes ...

... but I think that the interpretations might have been a small part of the factors which encouraged Judge Alito to rule as he did.

We who live by the Constitution do still have a friend in court.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.:

The El Paso ABC News affiliate reports, “Catholic Priest Mike Alcuino out of Presidio was called to the ranch and administered Justice Scalia’s last rights just moments ago.” The 79-year-old died in his sleep last night after a day of quail hunting at Cibolo Creek Ranch outside of Marfa, Texas. The Justice did not report feeling ill and retired to his room after dinner. The source, who was traveling with Scalia, told ABC-7 an El Paso priest has been called to Marfa. Scalia was the longest-serving current Justice on the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Scalia’s death leaves a vacancy on the court. The court can operate with eight justices, but any decisions that result in a 4-4 split among the justices leave the lower court decision unchanged:

UPDATE: Supreme Court Neutrality, RIP: 

But Obama quickly vowed that he would nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court and expected the Senate to confirm his choice.
“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” he said. “There will plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”
Obama said he took his constitutional responsibilities “seriously.”
“They’re bigger than any one party,” he added. “They’re about our democracy.”

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Stevens Biography:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.

Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

Stevens on The Second Amendment:

(I'm not convinced that I agree with Justice Stevens in regards to the meaning of the Second Amendment.  He seems to believe that .. no, let me quote what he SAYS he believes):

 The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

[emphasis added]

I did not get a sense, in the original document, of how "... that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state".

I do wish he had been more forthcoming with his reasoning.

My understanding is that American Citizens have had to deal with governmental infringements on the 2nd Amendment for .. always?  Elsewhere in the article, he cites Miller as an example, and I have to say that I am not persuaded by his casual reference as MILLER was NEVER defended in appeals court, so the decision went to the Government by default.  But still, it stands as a precedent, and must be heeded by stare decisis.

My interpretation (you are invited to debate) is that Justice Stevens does NOT believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of citizens to arm themselves for the protection of their lives, their family and their property ... but only in defense of the nation and only while serving as a "member of the militia".

Here are other remarks which Justice Stevens included last year to clarify his position vis-a-vis the "anomalous " arming of civilians,  Essentially, he proposed to amend the second amendment to limit the rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms".

 As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
 Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

[emphasis in the original]
[highlights added]

No, I'm not making a statement or an argument.  Merely providing some information about the retires Justice of SCOUSA who was nominated and confirmed by Republican President(s).

Well .. Justice Stevens DOES seem a bit testy, in my mind.  But I'm sure that if he were to read what *_I_* have written, he would describe me as "testy" as well.  (And I would consider that a compliment!)