Featured

Cases awaiting Cert from the Supreme Court focus heavily on the right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home

22 May , 2020  

For weeks now, people have been waiting to find out which of ten gun cases before the Supreme Court will be granted Cert. Some of these cases have actually been on hold for a year.

Six cases involved concealed carry. The Heller and McDonald decisions dealt only with the “to keep” part of the Second Amendment. While Scalia’s decision in Heller noted that the term “bear” meant to carry a gun and that there was a right to carry guns outside one’s home, the discussion was what they call “dicta,” which has no binding precedent on future cases.

If the court hears any of these six cases, there could finally be Supreme Court precedent about concealed carry.

Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, on whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Also questioned the government’s ability to make this right conditional on showing a particular need to carry a firearm.

Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, on whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Also questioned the government’s ability to make this right conditional on showing a particular need to carry a firearm.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, on whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Culp v. Raoul – The question is whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.

Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.

The other four cases cover a range of issues including assault weapons, the interstate sale of handguns, and regulations that are gradually banning all handguns in California.

Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.

Mance v. Barr – Asks if the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.

By


2 Responses

  1. With criminals they have hand guns to rob and kill innocent Americans how are we to protect ourselves legally if we do not get smith and Wesson or colt to help us stay safe? California stops citizens from buying hand guns because they can. American values for over hundred of years are going away each and every day and this has to stop.

  2. Patriot Solutions says:

    Purchased permit requirements to exercise rights is unconstitutional. Bearing arms is a protected right.
    Miranda vs Arizona (1966) : “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government … the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. … The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)
    Marbury v Madison “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
    “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35.
    (“[T]he fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not itself subject to interest balancing. The right categorically exists, subject to such limitations as were present at the time of the Amendment’s ratification.”); United States v. Chovan,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *