Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

1
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a decision allowing 18-year-olds to openly carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania.

There were no noted dissents in the high court's brief order. It lets stand a ban on people aged 18 to 20 carrying guns in public during a declared state of emergency.

The case comes amid major shifts in the firearm legal landscape following an influential Supreme Court decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights. The high court said any firearm restrictions must have a strong basis in history.

Multiple gun laws have been struck down in the wake of that ruling, including age restrictions, by judges in states like Minnesota, Virginia and Texas. The Pennsylvania challengers argued that younger people weren’t barred from carrying guns at the time of the nation’s founding, so they shouldn't be barred today.

But the Supreme Court handed down a new opinion this year that upheld a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The high court said Tuesday the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider the Pennsylvania case in light of that decision.

Pennsylvania officials, for their part, had argued that there is a long tradition of limiting guns to people 21 and older dating back to the 1850s.
https://www.timeswv.com/news/national_ ... 97443.html

What can we say.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

4
sikacz wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:42 pm
CowboyT wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:11 pm That's unfortunate. Old enough to get drafted to fight for your country, old enough to exercise all your Constitutional rights. The SCOTUS should've let that decision stand for that reason alone.
Agree.
Also agree.

I suspect they want "dangerousness" addressed in the ruling since it's a person category ban and not a hardware ban, so to speak. It's also a messy case, so that doesn't help. I am also hoping they are keeping room for Snope v Brown (AWB).

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

5
This newspaper article was from the Associate Press, AP writing especially on firearms is really poor. They didn't even mention the name of the case, which is kinda important if you're writing a news article. The case isn't dead, it was just returned to the 3rd Circuit for consideration.

The case is Paris v Lara from the 3rd Circuit in PA. From the October 15th list of court orders:
PARIS, COMM'R, PA STATE POLICE V. LARA, MADISON M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2c8f.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

6
Federalism vs the power of each State. There's the rub. We do not see a consistent application of the Constitution in these gun rulings. And of course there remain other blaring inconsistencies. I claim this Court is illegitimate due to that problem, among others.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

7
Actually, it would be the various Circuit Courts that are responsible for the blaring inconsistencies, from what I'm seeing. The 9th Circuit, for example, and with very few exceptions, is consistently and blatantly anti-2A in their decisions. However, the DC Circuit has ruled in a more pro-2A fashion.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

8
CowboyT wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:24 am Actually, it would be the various Circuit Courts that are responsible for the blaring inconsistencies, from what I'm seeing. The 9th Circuit, for example, and with very few exceptions, is consistently and blatantly anti-2A in their decisions. However, the DC Circuit has ruled in a more pro-2A fashion.
I agree about the Circuit courts. I think all the cases will go all the way, though. I do not expect increased consistency. It will all tilt towards the owners of the means of production, either red or blue. If voters are complacent to allow the inequities to continue, they will continue. Everyone eligible should vote. We might get actual representation where the courts even things out rather than the Potemkin representation we have now.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

11
There is the law and there is politics and in some federal and state courts, politics seem to be driving judicial decisions. When it comes to firearms cases, the 9th Circuit (San Francisco) is solidly on the left as is the 2nd Circuit (New York City) and the 7th Circuit (Chicago). On the right is the 5th Circuit (New Orleans) and the rest are someplace in between. The 3rd Circuit (Philadelphia) has been in the middle, so we'll see what they do with this case - send it back to the original 3 judge panel, send it to a new 3 judge panel or reargue it before an en banc panel. SCOTUS GVR'd a lot of gun cases at the end of last term and told them to read the United States v Rahimi decision that was written by Roberts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

12
highdesert wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:51 am There is the law and there is politics and in some federal and state courts, politics seem to be driving judicial decisions. When it comes to firearms cases, the 9th Circuit (San Francisco) is solidly on the left as is the 2nd Circuit (New York City) and the 7th Circuit (Chicago). On the right is the 5th Circuit (New Orleans) and the rest are someplace in between. The 3rd Circuit (Philadelphia) has been in the middle, so we'll see what they do with this case - send it back to the original 3 judge panel, send it to a new 3 judge panel or reargue it before an en banc panel. SCOTUS GVR'd a lot of gun cases at the end of last term and told them to read the United States v Rahimi decision that was written by Roberts.
SCOTUS telling lower courts to read a ruling is pointless, they will simply not read it or just ignore parts they don’t agree with. SCOTUS needs to make clear rulings and slap these lower courts down.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

14
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:59 am It also doesn't help the timeline that the jurisprudence on 2A is so young and rapidly changing. At the basic level, Heller applies to what (hardware/keep), Bruen applies to how (carry/bear), and Rahimi applies to who (dangerousness). 2A hostile courts haven't really bothered to get the nuances.
That’s why SCOTUS needs to build a body of rulings instead of not doing their job. They need to take on cases, it’s that simple.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

15
sikacz wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:05 am
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:59 am It also doesn't help the timeline that the jurisprudence on 2A is so young and rapidly changing. At the basic level, Heller applies to what (hardware/keep), Bruen applies to how (carry/bear), and Rahimi applies to who (dangerousness). 2A hostile courts haven't really bothered to get the nuances.
That’s why SCOTUS needs to build a body of rulings instead of not doing their job. They need to take on cases, it’s that simple.
I agree. However, this is not a tidy case. Now, if they GVR Snope (was Bianchi) again, I will howl loudly! It's a straight forward hardware ban that shouldn't have withstood Heller. It was GVRd right after Bruen and, oddly, the lower courts fucked it up just the same.

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

16
sikacz wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:05 am
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:59 am It also doesn't help the timeline that the jurisprudence on 2A is so young and rapidly changing. At the basic level, Heller applies to what (hardware/keep), Bruen applies to how (carry/bear), and Rahimi applies to who (dangerousness). 2A hostile courts haven't really bothered to get the nuances.
That’s why SCOTUS needs to build a body of rulings instead of not doing their job. They need to take on cases, it’s that simple.
You know, that's really it. It's sort of a variant of 45's delay, delay, delay strategy. If he never lets the case come up, well, there won't be a ruling to worry about. Clever rascals.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania

17
CDFingers wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:42 am
sikacz wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:05 am
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:59 am It also doesn't help the timeline that the jurisprudence on 2A is so young and rapidly changing. At the basic level, Heller applies to what (hardware/keep), Bruen applies to how (carry/bear), and Rahimi applies to who (dangerousness). 2A hostile courts haven't really bothered to get the nuances.
That’s why SCOTUS needs to build a body of rulings instead of not doing their job. They need to take on cases, it’s that simple.
You know, that's really it. It's sort of a variant of 45's delay, delay, delay strategy. If he never lets the case come up, well, there won't be a ruling to worry about. Clever rascals.

CDF
SCOTUS can take all the cases and make all the ruling it wants but the lower courts are *ignoring* them without consequences. Add to that, that SCOTUS seems to be largely owned and operated now by the same Global Oligarchs that own and operate .gov and we can see that voting will not, can not, get US out of this mess. Vote certainly but it's time to realize that .gov and SCOTUS are owned and operated by Evil that has an agenda to disarm/infringe US into being impotent. And other Rights are being usurped/infringed without consequence as well.

It's bought and paid for. Both dominant and controlling political parties have no interest in protecting our Rights (all of our Rights) so long as Citizens United exists and the Global Oligarchy buys the .gov and SCOTUS to further their agenda.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests