Gubs for the day

Dava Castillo has an AllVoices article about the NRA:

The Supreme Court said it would not hear appeals on three court rulings that affirm federal and state restrictions on gun purchases. This is a loss for gun rights’ advocates including the National Rifle Association (NRA), and signifies a message that relaxing gun regulations is not the direction the country is going.
In the first case, the NRA challenged a Texas law that prevents eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds from carrying handguns in public. The second case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations that date back to 1968, making it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21 The third case centered on whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms transport between states. This is a challenge filed by Washington D.C. residents who wanted to buy guns out of state in Virginia.
By not hearing the challenges, the Supreme Court effectively allows the laws to stand. The court has not ruled on whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question that was part of the first NRA challenge to the Texas law, according to the report.
The Supreme Court, however, is still most likely going to rule on the issue of public gun rights. Even though lower courts have upheld restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel in California recently struck down a law that makes Supreme Court action likely.
“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority in a two-to-one decision, according to a report in the Washington Post.
Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good-cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.
According to the Washington Times, the San Diego, California law mandated that anyone applying for concealed-carry permit was required to prove they needed a gun for their personal safety by demonstrating “good cause”.
"The Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home," the court panel ruled. "States may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it."
Because of this decision, some experts believe a ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue has become necessary. “These cases present vital questions for gun policy: where you can carry a gun and who can have one,” Adam Winkler, a specialist in constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, told the Washington Times. “It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court has to answer these questions.”

Rico says the Court is not likely to come down on the side of gub owners...