Supreme Court rejects several gun rights cases for next term

Security officers, one wearing a mask, walk in front of the Supreme Court, Thursday, May 14, 2020, in Washington.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued a couple of important rulings that were made more controversial because President Trump’s side didn’t get the backing of supposedly conservative judges.

Those rulings overshadowed the court’s decision in the same week to shove aside Second Amendment cases and not hear even one of the ten cases presented to it. The decision understandably angered gun activists who are rightly seeing a pattern of inaction by the court on cases that could refine gun rights in this country. Justice Clarence Thomas called the Second Amendment an orphan amendment to the current court. Whatever the term, it has largely been forgotten.

Many of these cases would clear up the muddled legal landscape on local and state gun rules that appear largely in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution.

In one, someone who services ATM machines in high-crime areas was denied a New Jersey gun permit because he couldn’t show justifiable need. Another dealt with whether assault-style weapons are banned under Massachusetts law if their designs are in common use, a protection offered in an earlier high court case.

The Supreme Court had ten strong cases from which to pick and choose to sharpen and hopefully broaden interpretations of the Second Amendment.

It punted. It’s not the first time. Continually doing so leaves important precedents to whither on the vine, so to speak.

It is difficult to understand why the Supreme Court is so gun shy. Its members are not running for office.

The issues in those cases are not irrelevant even in coronavirus and protest times. They are maybe more relevant.

Weren’t some of the activists in the Seattle “occupied zone” wielding assault-style weapons? In a state with some of the most stringent gun possession and ownership laws in the country, why weren’t those people arrested? Clearly, the hands-off treatment was political. The Supreme Court is there to inform and refine law built on discerning readings of the Constitution.

The country would be better off if the Supreme Court decided some Second Amendment issues rather than leaving it to Seattle politicians.

— Today’s News-Herald


(2) comments


Sometimes you just to have to think, huh? I wonder if all the multi-millions of U.S. dollars being spent to take rights away from the law abiding citizens might be better suited to address the actual problems. Redirect all those funds to get stolen and illegal gun possessors off the streets. That would certainly help drop the 53 percent of violent crimes in America. Why waste all these millions to constantly attack law abiding citizens? It should make you think, huh?



Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.