The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would not hear two key cases surrounding the Second Amendment.
“The first case dealt with a San Diego ordinance that required San Diego gun owners to have a good reason to carry a concealed firearm outside the home.
The second case concerned two men from Pennsylvania who challenged the scope of a federal law that bans felons and some individuals charged with misdemeanors from possessing firearms.”
In the California case, gun-rights advocacy group the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation filed a brief seeking the court’s opinion in the case.
“Whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home” is the perhaps the “single most important unresolved Second Amendment question,” said a brief filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the law was constitutional, saying in its decision that “the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority, saying the Court should have taken the California case.
“The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “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.”