.. people on both sides of the gun issue are likely to be unhappy.
Well this particular people is not unhappy, I think it's fine overall. Gun control won the big one. Tho I thinks the rule is that these cases could be revisited in the future by scatus.
1 By refusing to hear the case, the justices left in place a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the California restrictions and declared that the Second Amendment did not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon outside of the home.
2nd case: By declining to hear the case, the justices let stand a lower court’s 2016 ruling ordering the government to restore Binderup’s and Suarez’s rights to gun ownership and declaring that individuals may challenge their gun prohibitions on a case-by-case basis.
Binderup & Suarez offenses weren't that godawful, unless binderup was well over 25: Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 to corrupting a minor for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old co-worker. Although he faced up to five years in prison, he was sentenced to three years of probation. Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to carrying a handgun without a license, a charge that carried a maximum three-year sentence. He was given a suspended jail sentence and a year of probation, which he completed.
On case #1, seems gorsuck has indeed replaced Scalia as Clarence's mule driver: Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, both conservatives, disagreed with their colleagues’ decision to not take up the case. Thomas said the denial “reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right
Yeah clarence, poor widdle 2nd amemma getting twampled on all da time, americans need more more more guns and nobody to tellum they can't, eh?
= new reply since forum marked as read
