SCOTUS Denies CERT for Peruta Case
 

After delaying the decision for several weeks, SCOTUS, on the last day of it's session, this year, has denied certiorari for the Peruta case, 7-2.

The dissent comes from Justice Thomas, with justice Gorsuch joining him. A portion of the dissent follows:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees
that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm's

shall not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that
guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for
self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one
of national importance or that the courts of appeals have
already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that
the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public
carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this
important question definitively. Twenty-six States have
asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for
Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have
fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals
and three state courts of last resort have decided
cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public
carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below)
have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the
issue.

Hence, I do
not see much value in waiting for additional courts to
weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at
stake

The Court
has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in
over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard
argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the
question presented turned on the meaning of the First
Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable,
especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence
is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared
to the First and Fourth Amendments.

The Constitution does not rank certain
rights above others, and I do not think this Court should
impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred
rights.

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects
a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second
Amendment as a disfavored right

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded
constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the
guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated
and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear
choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear
arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by
idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly
when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully
dissent.

So it seems SCOUTS wants to hear more from other appellate courts before wading into it. (Well, officially, that is...)... http://www.floridashootersnetwork.co...milies/042.gif

Now, why Alito and Roberts joined the others will be interesting to discover...

SCOTUS yet again treating the 2nd Amendment as a lesser right.

SCOTUS always wants to see several appellate cases before making a ruling.

That said, if it ever does get to the SCOTUS, I expect them to find that licensing requirements do not overly infringe upon your 2A rights.

There's a theory going on that Alito and Roberts withheld their support because they wanted a better case to come along before they committed to taking the issue up. Peruta was a weak case from the onset. Even Alan Gura, the big SCOTUS litigant for 2A had distanced himself from that case. The theory goes that had SCOTUS taken this case, it would have gone 5-4 with Kennedy voting with the liberal wing. And that would have sent a very bad precedent for future cases. Of course, they allowed Thomas to write the dissent, and allowed Gorsuch to join it in order to establish his position on the issue.

I think that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is waiting for two things.... 1) For Kennedy to retire (and perhaps also one of the liberal justices), and we desperately need that to happen soon. And 2): they're waiting for a rock solid case to come before them. The next significant one up is the following:

Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

Nichols v. Brown

Appeal No.: 14-55873

Hopefully, by the time it reaches SCOTUS, we'll have Kennedy replaced and one of the liberals on the way out.