Skip to content

A mixed day from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment

June 26, 2017

 Two second amendment issues were on tap on the final day of the Supreme Court’s session and it was a mixed day. First, the Supreme Court declined to take up Peruta v. California in its next session. This case revolves around California’s “good cause” requirement for  getting a concealed carry license.

  In California a person must show good reason for wanting to carry a concealed weapon outside a person’s home or property. Simple general self-defense without showing any type of imminent threat to the applicant is not “good cause” in the state, and still for this you’ll need an insurance, so is better to count with a good ADA consulting service provider in California.

  Here is more on that case:

SCOTUS declined to hear Peruta v. California; a case revolving around California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017,  Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Peruta in hopes of securing a ruling as to “whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.”

It is absurd to think that a person does not have the right to self defense by any means necessary just because they could not prove a threat was imminent.

  That was a loss but the second case, Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, was a win for Second Amendment advocates. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be denied his Second Amendment right based on a non-serious misdemeanor conviction.

  Here is more on this case:

On Monday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) let stand a Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruling which protects Second Amendment rights following non-serious misdemeanor convictions.

The issue revolved around Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf of Daniel Binderup. He “pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee,” receiving “three years’ probation and a $300 fine.” Since the crime could have resulted in jail time of over one year–triggering  a “federal gun law blocks firearms possession–Binderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights.

The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderup’s favor and Obama’s Department of Justice responded by seeking a “Supreme Court review.” The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium


10 Comments leave one →
  1. MaddMedic permalink
    June 26, 2017 9:41 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….

    Liked by 1 person

  2. June 26, 2017 10:27 pm

    “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.”

    Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 27, 2017 5:20 am

      He’s got that 100% right! Glad to see Gorsuch joined him in this, that is a good sign.


  3. June 27, 2017 6:01 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.


  4. Dr. Jeff permalink
    June 27, 2017 5:30 pm

    I live in California. Thanks to recent changes in our laws:

    1) In a few days, I will not be able to buy ammunition without passing a background check – for which I must pay.
    2) By July 1st, I must permanently convert the 15 round magazines for my WWII M1 Carbine to no more than 10 rounds.
    3) I just finished converting my AR-15 clone to being a “featureless” rifle so that I will not have to register as the owner of an assault weapon.

    I can’t post a pic of the featureless rifle, but here’s a link to parts I added. I chose the FRS-15. Works well enough, but I liked the original configuration better.

    Take it for a warning and share it for a laugh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • June 27, 2017 7:12 pm

      Looks like you had to spend quite a bit of money to make it CA compliant! I am still surprised SCOTUS did not take this one up, it is sad.


      • Dr. Jeff permalink
        June 30, 2017 3:10 pm

        Hi Steve, here’s why I was willing to spend the money. This is an ad from a local sporting goods chain.

        The featureless adaptation in these rifles is referred to as a “shark fin” and the shoulder stocks are non adjustable. I could have permanently fixed my adjustable stock and added a shark fin for very little money. However, then the rifle would have several operating problems, starting with the grip. Going with the FRS-15, at least I have a fairly functional rifle. The grip isn’t quite as convenient as the original pistol grip, but it’s not all that bad either.

        Take it for a warning and share it for a laugh.

        Liked by 1 person

      • June 30, 2017 7:12 pm

        Money well spent in my opinion!



  1. AW | A mixed day from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: