Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

In the morning of June 26, 2017, the US Supreme Court informed us that it had denied the cert petition filed in the concealed carry case Peruta v. California (formerly Peruta v. San Diego).

In a dissent to the denial of the cert petition Justice Thomas wrote, “I see no reason to await another case.” Justice Thomas’ dissent was joined by Justice Gorsuch.

I confess that this was surprising coming from Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas has not been shy about voting to turn down cert petitions until, in his view, a better case comes along.

There are many reasons why the Peruta cert petition should not have been granted but now that it has been denied, we can leave those reasons to be debated by the academics.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court will not have to wait long for another case and in my view, a far better case – Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida.

In a 4-2-0 decision (technically a 3-1-2-0 decision) the Florida Supreme Court defied the US Supreme Court’s clear language in four US Supreme Court cases on the Second Amendment going back to 1897, which said that concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right. The Florida Supreme Court literally said that it did not care what the US Supreme Court said about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution and concealed carry not being a right under the Second Amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld that state’s Open Carry ban, which was enacted in 1987.

The State of Massachusetts high court, in a unanimous decision, likewise slapped the US Supreme Court in the face in a decision, which held that Tasers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment because Tasers did not exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was enacted.

The US Supreme Court unanimously slapped the Massachusetts high court down and remanded the case back to them for a do-over.

Of course that did not mean that the justices on the US Supreme Court unanimously support the Second Amendment. It does mean that the US Supreme Court justices will band together to protect their authority as the highest court in the land.

The cert petition in Norman v. Florida is due on July 12th although it is not unusual for SCOTUS to grant applications to extend the filing deadline by up to 60 days.

Once the cert petition is filed, the State of Florida will then either file a Brief In Opposition to the cert petition or it will file a letter stating that it will not be filing a Brief In Opposition. If Florida files the letter and SCOTUS does not request a response by the State of Florida then we know that Norman’s cert petition will be denied.

If a Brief In Opposition is filed then Norman will file a Reply Brief to the Brief In Opposition. At that point we have to wait to see whether or not SCOTUS grants or denies Norman’s cert petition.

If SCOTUS is going to grant Norman’s cert petition, have oral arguments, and decide the case on the merits then the cert petition must be granted by the end of December 2017.

There is plenty of time for that to happen.

Also waiting in the wings is my California Open Carry appeal which has not yet been decided. Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al

Now that the Peruta concealed carry lawsuit is finally dead and done with, I suspect that a decision in my appeal will now come sooner than later.

Why sooner than later? Put yourself in the shoes of a typical anti-gun judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals. President Trump made good on his promise to appoint a pro-gun Justice to the US Supreme Court and could very well appoint three more justices before his first term in office ends. Also, there are four vacancies on the 9th circuit court of appeals waiting for President Trump to fill with his nominees.

The longer the 9th circuit court of appeals waits to decide my appeal, the better the chances are of my winning.

NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California