SCOTUS Rejects California Concealed Carry Case

It wasn’t that long ago when I wrote here that one of my hopes was that the Supreme Court would be far more likely to hear gun cases now that Kavanaugh was on the bench. After all, the author of the decision dubbed Heller II would likely be a great ally for Second Amendment advocates, especially after the way the Left ran him through the mud.

Unfortunately, my hopes were seriously misplaced.

The Supreme Court is refusing a new invitation to rule on gun rights, leaving in place California restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public.

The justices on Monday rejected an appeal from Sacramento residents who argued that they were unfairly denied permits to be armed in public.

The complaint alleged that a prior Sacramento sheriff who was in charge of handgun permits arbitrarily rewarded friends.

The sheriff in question has reportedly changed the policy, but there was still a serious issue at work if something like this could happen. Then again, it’s inevitably under May Issue laws. When select people have the power to grant or deny permits on a whim, guess what they do? Grant them on a whim, whatever that may be.

I hoped that the Court would, at the very least, smack down the capricious nature of these May Issue permitting laws, but that would require them to hear the case. That’s clearly not going to happen.

The Court has refused every gun case since the McDonald decision in 2010, despite several cases where it seems clear the laws in question cross the line. A prime example was the Court’s refusal to hear a case involving Maryland’s assault weapon ban.

However, we can’t force the Court to take on cases. It’s purely its prerogative to decide what it listens to and what it doesn’t.

That means that despite our most fervent desires, we can’t make it do a blasted thing, which sucks.

I can’t imagine how the Court could see something like this as anything other than unconstitutional. You deny people their right to bear arms for no valid reason except that someone in power thinks, “Eh, why not screw ’em over?”

That’s the problem with May Issue laws. They lead to that thinking, and that’s if they’re not outright corrupt. Far too often, when power for something like this is placed in the hands of a few, those few start to look at how to supplement their income. Especially if people are eager to do anything to get that permit.

Don’t tell me it won’t happen, because it already has.

Shall Issue laws change that completely. They take that authority out of the hands of the few and declare that without a valid reason as prescribed by law, there’s no incentive for shenanigans. There’s no opportunity for them either.

This case offered a golden opportunity, at least in my non-attorney mind–for the Court to smack down May Issue laws or at least the kind of crap that led to the lawsuit in the first place.

Maybe next time.