The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that contended the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun in public. The denial of this petition had no comments. Because there were no comments to the denied petition, there is no way to know why the Supreme Court chose not to get involved in this controversy.
The case is Kachalsky v. Cacace. The issues presented to the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home; and
- Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses to responsible, law-abiding adults for lack of “proper cause” to bear arms for self-defense.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d. Cir. 2012)) affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the State. The district court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The district court concluded that carrying concealed weapons in public is “outside of the core of the Second Amendment concern.” Alternatively, the district court also concluded that the “proper cause” requirement would survive the scrutiny under the Second Amendment.
The SCOTUS blog,
I came across this very interesting piece of news. Mississippi and Texas proposed and called for bills to make it illegal to enforce any of the new federal gun control measures.
Mississippi Governor Bryant called for a bill that would make it illegal for state and local enforcement to enforce any executive order from the President. Similarly, in Texas, State Representative Toth introduced the “Firearms Protection Act.” The bill would make “any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries” and “anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.”
The question is, of course, how would a federal statute or executive decision interact with the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The second amendment provides,
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court’s most indicative decisions call for an interesting debate. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can enforce several restrictions on the right to bear arms. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886) (upholding the state’s or Congress’s regulation of militias); Miller v. Texas, 135 US 535 (1894) (upholding the state’s ability to press criminal charges for owning an unlicensed gun); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897) (upholding state’s regulation of concealed weapons); and United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939) (upholding the National Firearms Act which banned the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons).
This, however, does not mean that we would know to what extent a regulation would be constitutional.
via State Lawmakers Say No to President Obamas Gun Control Proposal – ABC News.