A federal appeals court rejected a challenge by gun groups Monday to California’s requirement of a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home, clearing the way for a final test in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the law in June, ruling 7-4 that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public. Opponents sought a rehearing before the entire appeals court, but the court said Monday that the request had failed to win a majority among its 28 active judges. No vote total was announced.
“We will now ask the Supreme Court to set things straight,” said the gun advocates’ lawyer, C.D. Michel.


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Court-sets-California-gun-carry-case-on-path-to-9144507.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

So the deciding factor in this case is whether Trump or Clinton is elected.

So the deciding factor in this case is whether Trump or Clinton is elected.

haven't you been keeping up?
the deciding factor is if enough people vote for the libertarian choice

So the deciding factor in this case is whether Trump or Clinton is elected.

That's only true because people repeat this lie so much!  But it's a lie, so if we stop believing it, it'll no longer be true!

Or something like that!

So the deciding factor in this case is whether Trump or Clinton is elected.

Unless it is heard before the election or a judge is selected. Either way it's scary.

Unless it is heard before the election or a judge is selected. Either way it's scary.

what's scary is that you don't realize that if the supreme court decided to hear it tomorrow, it is unlikely that it would be heard by the court, much less decided upon, by the time president johnson takes office or a judge is selected

Unless it is heard before the election or a judge is selected. Either way it's scary.

Scarier still is this decision will stick for the next 50 years or more.

what's scary is that you don't realize that if the supreme court decided to hear it tomorrow, it is unlikely that it would be heard by the court, much less decided upon, by the time president johnson takes office or a judge is selected

I am actually looking into the future. Notice that I mentioned about a judge being selected. Congress could stall and drag out the process of approving a new justice for months and months. And if the case is heard before another justice is approved, the case could end up in a tie and the result would revert back to the lower court's decision.

But I am glad you are optimistic about Johnson

I am actually looking into the future. Notice that I mentioned about a judge being selected. Congress could stall and drag out the process of approving a new justice for months and months. And if the case is heard before another justice is approved, the case could end up in a tie and the result would revert back to the lower court's decision.

But I am glad you are optimistic about Johnson

months and months?
http://bfy.tw/7Fno
http://bfy.tw/7Fns
but i guess now you are going to say that "months and months" make up "years and years"

"optimistic" is not what i was going for, but believe what you want to believe

I am actually looking into the future. Notice that I mentioned about a judge being selected. Congress could stall and drag out the process of approving a new justice for months and months. And if the case is heard before another justice is approved, the case could end up in a tie and the result would revert back to the lower court's decision.

But I am glad you are optimistic about Johnson

The way some of the SCOTUS rulings have gone the last few years before Scalia's death, it demonstrates a very political court.  Maybe they aren't ruling based on what a particular party or elected official wants, but what they believe given their ideologies.

If it's a choice between a Liberal-leaning majority and a 50/50 split, I'd rather have an even number.

BTW, there is no mandate for the number of justices other than Congress making appropriations for them.  There's part of me wondering if a ruling is always going to be 5-4, then maybe that ruling wasn't necessarily correct.  If 6 judges, independent of ideology, can't be swayed to rule the same way, then the argument may not have been all that compelling.  Food for thought.

And from what I can tell on here, you're the only one optimistic about Johnson.   

This is from one of the CA lawyers suing.
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/the-battle-for-the-second-amendment-moves-to-hawaii_62860/

He actually says he doesn't like Baker and his lawyers are worst than the 3 stooges.