View Full Version : How bad is this and why is no one talking about it?
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-25-13, 21:49
http://www.businessinsider.com/court-rules-there-is-no-right-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-2013-2?pundits_only=0&comments_page=2#comment-512c29b9ecad04615f000008
Could be real bad. Almost certainly going to the Supreme Court.
We should all be a little chilled by the SCOTUS statement “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
BrigandTwoFour
02-25-13, 22:24
It is pretty much directly contradictory to the ruling of the 7th circuit, or whichever one recently told Chicago and their carry ban to FOAD.
So, now we have an official split between federal courts.
That combined with 20 different states asking SCOTUS to take on Kachalsky v. Cacace, which is a challenge to 'may issue' laws, means that SCOTUS will very likely take on CCW. The guys I follow who work the courts expect a decision by summer next year.
Given the arguments in that case I'm not even sure how they could of handed down such a decision in the first place. That is/was pure political activism. They were reaching to significantly expand the scope of precedent.
Maybe they were told to do so.
“In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”
WOW!!...
Mauser KAR98K
02-26-13, 01:55
The Blaze has an extensive write up.
Here is a qoute:
With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/federal-court-finds-no-constitutional-right-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-we-explain-the-decision/
But, if the practice is growing in popularity, and yet the practice of concealed carry is bearing arms that is written in the Bill or Rights, than how is this not a right? What is the problem with carrying concealed? Is it the thought that no one knows who is armed? Criminals fear this, and data and statistics have shown this. yet, what of open carry? If neither is a right, than is transporting a firearm to the range not a right? How is someone to learn to shoot if they live in a densely populated area?
How is someone to protect themselves outside their homes, but wants to be desecrate and not cause alarm at society at large?
How does carrying concealed go under the "reasonable limitations" of someone wanting to purchase a tank or a nuke? According to Heller, the weapon's that do not meet these reasonable restrictions are ones that are carried by hand.
Time to push for a national carry bill that does not have registration involved, but the licensing and requirements are given to the states.
Well that's depressing. Everything right now is depressing.
Moose-Knuckle
02-26-13, 02:11
In case you haven't seen this one yet.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=122362
While the state ran media is fixating everyone on evil black rifles and "high capacity clips" there is slide of hand going after handgun rights, aka CCW.
"Death by a thousand cuts."
Mauser KAR98K
02-26-13, 02:29
In case you haven't seen this one yet.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=122362
While the state ran media is fixating everyone on evil black rifles and "high capacity clips" there is slide of hand going after handgun rights, aka CCW.
"Death by a thousand cuts."
Not to mention that private sales are about to negotiated out of the backdoor by Republicans.
We are under siege big time!
Well that's depressing. Everything right now is depressing.
Yup pretty much.
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing.
It is pretty much directly contradictory to the ruling of the 7th circuit, or whichever one recently told Chicago and their carry ban to FOAD.
So, now we have an official split between federal courts.
That combined with 20 different states asking SCOTUS to take on Kachalsky v. Cacace, which is a challenge to 'may issue' laws, means that SCOTUS will very likely take on CCW. The guys I follow who work the courts expect a decision by summer next year.
IMO it's a good thing, coming someone born and raised in "may issue" states which are effectively "only if you're famous or a politician."
Even if SCOTUS says it's not a right, those in "shall issue" states aren't negatively affected unless they start repealing their own laws of their own will.
At best, we get nation wide constitutional carry. I doubt this outcome, but it would be nice... However registration has always been constitutional, so I'm not holding my breath for this. Likely, we get nation wide "shall issue." Good chance for nation wide "may issue" at least. I don't think they will rule that concealed carry isn't protected by the 2A, but it is a possibility.
montanadave
02-26-13, 05:11
While I fully expect to get flamed for saying it, the NRA's legal strategy of attempting to strike down any and all gun control laws is a loser. I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check. In my opinion, that's a reasonable restriction. There are restrictions or limits on all rights.
They pushed for a bridge too far in this case and ended up with a decision that blew up in their face.
Magic_Salad0892
02-26-13, 05:28
I think the misdomeanors thing is kinda retarded. I mean, if it's a non violent crime you should be able to carry.
If you have a history of not paying speeding tickets, shoplifting, or tax evasion, then I don't give a shit if you carry a gun. As long as you don't have a history of child molestation, murder, or armed robbery.
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-26-13, 05:38
Dave
We have criminal back ground checks for concealed carry? Some of us even have very high security clearances and have to wait a year to get a permit. My wife is in LE and it took her 8 months to get approved.
After reading all your comments a few things stuck out to me. Contradiction, forcing it to go to the SCOTUS, BO is not getting his bans like he wanted but if this goes up and gets shot down establishing a precedent for national carry. Bam just like that over night you have national registration.
montanadave
02-26-13, 06:03
There's a lot of political gamesmenship at play, not to mention hypocrisy, on a host of "touchy" subjects. When states establish laws which favor their position, advocates of a particular issue champion "state's rights." But if the states don't play ball, folks are quick to seek relief in federal courts.
And when you run to the federal courts, you risk getting handed a decision which may have much more far-reaching impacts. Win a few, lose a few. As I said previously, I think the NRA's absolutist approach is ultimately going to cost gun owners more in the long run.
How bad is this and why is no one talking about it?
It's not that bad, concealed carry hasn't been protected by SCOTUS as near as I can tell. No one is talking about it, because the court is basically upholding what's already been long held by previous courts. If it goes to SCOTUS I don't see them knocking this down.
BrigandTwoFour
02-26-13, 09:02
Ya'll also have to remember that this case the 2nd just decided was over a non-resident permit. The plaintiff was a WA resident wanting a CO permit. Only a handful of states do permits like that.
While the language is depressing, my reading (and I'm a computer science nerd, not a lawyer) is that the decision leaves it up to the state to decide their own permit requirements and carry laws.
It doesn't do anything about carrying in general (as the decision against Chicago did), and it didn't attack 'may issue' laws as being unfair (like the Kachalsky case will).
I still expect SCOTUS to take on carry laws within the next year, though.
Having the SCOTUS take on a CCW case is a double edged sword. He'll in today's political deuchbaggery ruled society it could be an infinite edged sword. They could come up with some idiotic it's a tax/fee/servi e charge thing again. They could pretty much claim the 2nd is an individual right on private property. They could rule that we have a right to carry nation wide so long as we have a federally recognized permit and end up with a registration scheme. I wouldn't get all excited about then SC taking this up. Every time we involve lawyers and judges my picker factor goes up not down.
I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check. In my opinion, that's a reasonable restriction. There are restrictions or limits on all rights.
Because criminals who carry illegally try to get CCW permits... Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and parts of Montana all have no permit "Constitutional Carry" and it seems to be working just fine.
lifebreath
02-26-13, 11:32
Ya'll also have to remember that this case the 2nd just decided was over a non-resident permit. The plaintiff was a WA resident wanting a CO permit. Only a handful of states do permits like that.
While the language is depressing, my reading (and I'm a computer science nerd, not a lawyer) is that the decision leaves it up to the state to decide their own permit requirements and carry laws.
It doesn't do anything about carrying in general (as the decision against Chicago did), and it didn't attack 'may issue' laws as being unfair (like the Kachalsky case will).
I still expect SCOTUS to take on carry laws within the next year, though.
That's my take after a cursory read. The substance of the case is different than that of the 7th Appellate. The 10th Appellate said the state of Colorado was not obliged to issue to an out-of-state resident, while the 7th Appellate said the state of Illinois cannot ban it's residents from carrying.
I do not think SCOTUS will take on the issue, but I could be wrong.
What business does a WA resident have suing CO for not issuing him a permit?
If the court can find that Heller had a right to "keep" a firearm in his home, I do not think it is going to be too hard for them to find that he has a right to "bear" his firearm outside his home.
Presuming a logicial, not political or emotional court decision.
While I fully expect to get flamed for saying it, the NRA's legal strategy of attempting to strike down any and all gun control laws is a loser. I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check. In my opinion, that's a reasonable restriction. There are restrictions or limits on all rights.
Except the 2A specifically states it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, unlike all the other rights which do not say that.
While I fully expect to get flamed for saying it, the NRA's legal strategy of attempting to strike down any and all gun control laws is a loser. I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check. In my opinion, that's a reasonable restriction. There are restrictions or limits on
You are entitled to your opinion. However I would like to point out that your opinion is based on your "feelings", emotions and opinions.
My opinion on the other hand, is based on the plain as day wording of the supreme law of the land. "The right to keep AND BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed". I don't think any law abiding citizen should have to pass any tests, jump through any hoops or submit to any government permission to exercise one of our fundamental rights. AZ, AK and VT have the right idea, and it works. We have several states with fully functioning working models of how it SHOULD be. VT has had their policy in place for a very long time and they have the lowest crime rate in the nation. It is already illegal for criminals and crazies to buy, own, possess or carry a gun in any capacity, and I am fine with that.
Criminals will do whatever they want whenever they want, so keep in mind that ALL we are discussing here is how much hassle, restriction, and infringement you wish to inflict on the GOOD guys. If ALL the good guys all over the country are allowed to carry, I would be a lot less worried about the few bad guys that are going to carry and commit crimes regardless of what ANY law says.
One thing I like to do when in a disagreement is look to see who stands with me and against me. Where do you think the lefty politicians and the criminals of our society stand on this issue?
There's a lot of political gamesmenship at play, not to mention hypocrisy, on a host of "touchy" subjects. When states establish laws which favor their position, advocates of a particular issue champion "state's rights." But if the states don't play ball, folks are quick to seek relief in federal courts.
And when you run to the federal courts, you risk getting handed a decision which may have much more far-reaching impacts. Win a few, lose a few. As I said previously, I think the NRA's absolutist approach is ultimately going to cost gun owners more in the long run.
You might be correct, but only if the courts make the stupidest rulings, just to spite everyone.
If the courts have already ruled that the 2nd is an individual right, then it's automatically a right reserved to the people, not the states. If the right to "keep AND bear" arms is a right, then the only logical way to say it doesn't cover concealed carry is to admit that it DOES cover open carry. That is unless someone can come up with a way to bear arms that is neither open nor concealed. :)
Let's hope Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas stay healthy for the foreseeable future....
What business does a WA resident have suing CO for not issuing him a permit?Because in Denver there was exactly zero way for him to be able to carry a gun for self defense: they wouldn't honor his resident CCW, won't honor any nonresident CCW from any other state, wouldn't issue him a CO nonresident permit (he applied for one and was denied, hence why he sued and had suitable standing to sue), and Denver bans open carry (the rest of the state doesn't, BTW, only Denver). So, just like with Illinois, he was and is completely denied 2A rights. He sued over the totality of banning bearing arms for him and anyone else in his position, asking for one of three solutions: overturn the OC ban, honor his resident license, or give him a CO license. The court rather dishonestly asserted that he was ONLY asking for concealed carry and/or the reporting of the case distorted/omitted the truth.
My understand is that he does a lot of work in the area so he had some interest in being able to be armed there, and the situation was specific and presented a very narrow legal issue which taken in total was a de facto absolute ban ala DC/Chicago.
Is this good or bad? Maybe a little bit of both, but mostly good, as mentioned above for the aspect of getting SCOTUS' attention. What we have in the "Heller 5" as we know them is at least a marginally acceptable expectation of honesty. Sure, there's some doubt on the matter with Roberts now that we see that the other side may be able to get to him (might have threatened his life over the Obamacare situation), but it's a better chance than we're going to have for a while.
PA PATRIOT
02-26-13, 14:58
I think the misdomeanors thing is kinda retarded. I mean, if it's a non violent crime you should be able to carry.
If you have a history of not paying speeding tickets, shoplifting, or tax evasion, then I don't give a shit if you carry a gun. As long as you don't have a history of child molestation, murder, or armed robbery.
Poor judgment is poor judgment plain and simple and if you cant live a arrest free life and follow the rules like everyone else then you should not be able to carry a gun.
Moose-Knuckle
02-26-13, 15:06
I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check.
We already do, in Texas to get a CHL you have to go through a DPS criminal background check and then they submit your info for the FBI to conduct one as well.
Poor judgment is poor judgment plain and simple and if you cant live a arrest free life and follow the rules like everyone else then you should not be able to carry a gun.
So you oppose constitutional carry?
Poor judgment is poor judgment plain and simple and if you cant live a arrest free life and follow the rules like everyone else then you should not be able to carry a gun.
You have no concept of the real world. It's incredibly easy to be arrested through no fault of your own.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/u-s-gun-laws-retroactively-barred-this-vietnam-vet-from-owning-a-firearm-because-of-a-teenage-misdemeanor-45-years-ago/
A 19-year-old sailor stationed in Annapolis, Md., in 1968 was arrested for getting into a fight with an alleged member of a street gang.
Now, more than four decades later, the 64-year-old U.S. Navy veteran has been stripped of his right to own a gun.
This retroactive crap has got to stop. I am surprised that there aren't more serious legal challenges to that portion. I mean what's to stop people from making traffic violations punishable by up to 2 years of prison. Ever plead guilty to running a light or speeding... Well you now can't own a gun cause in 1984 you were going 50 in a 35.
This guy shouldn't own guns... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-helium-balloon-environmental-crime-20130222,0,3220328.story
Anthony Brasfield saw romance when he released a dozen heart-shaped balloons into the sky over Dania Beach with his sweetie. A Florida Highway Patrol trooper saw a felony.
Brasfield, 40, and his girlfriend, Shaquina Baxter, were in the parking lot of the Motel 6 on Dania Beach Boulevard when he released the shiny red and silver mylar balloons and watched them float away Sunday morning.
Also watching the romantic gesture: an FHP trooper, who instead noted probable cause for an environmental crime.
Brasfield was charged with polluting to harm humans, animals, plants, etc. under the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act...
The third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in prison.
PA PATRIOT
02-26-13, 16:59
So you oppose constitutional carry?
Constitutional Carry is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license.
My opinion is that if one wishes to carry a firearm they need to be of sound mind and judgment with a clean record without conviction of a misdemeanor two or higher crime. Also people who have numerous misdemeanor three and or summary convictions should be excluded after a certain point as they show a track record of poor judgment.
Constitutional Carry is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license.
My opinion is that if one wishes to carry a firearm they need to be of sound mind and judgment with a clean record without conviction of a misdemeanor two or higher crime. Also people who have numerous misdemeanor three and or summary convictions should be excluded after a certain point as they show a track record of poor judgment.
I'll take that as a "no" then.
PA PATRIOT
02-26-13, 17:11
You have no concept of the real world. It's incredibly easy to be arrested through no fault of your own.
I have been dealing with the concept of the real world during a life time of military and L/E service and find many view the world with rose colored glasses and place to much trust in their fellow man who they know nothing about.
As to being arrested through no fault of your own is bull crap and while most will claim ignorance of the law the use of just a little common sense would keep most arrest free.
PA PATRIOT
02-26-13, 17:18
Constitutional Carry is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license.
My opinion is that if one wishes to carry a firearm they need to be of sound mind and judgment with a clean record without conviction of a misdemeanor two or higher crime. Also people who have numerous misdemeanor three and or summary convictions should be excluded after a certain point as they show a track record of poor judgment.
I'll take that as a "no" then.
Incorrect, I believe in Constitutional Carry but I do not see it as a absolute right if the person can not conduct their selfs in a respectable conviction free manner.
Incorrect, I believe in Constitutional Carry but I do not see it as a absolute right if the person can not conduct their selfs in a respectable conviction free manner.
You inferred that you don't. If you do, I don't think you understand what constitutional carry actually is, based on your own statements.
As to being arrested through no fault of your own is bull crap and while most will claim ignorance of the law the use of just a little common sense would keep most arrest free.
Like letting helium balloons go in the article I posted where the guy's facing a felony... Or like the article I posted where a veteran got in a fight with a gang member, misdemeanor mind you, and now over 40 years later they're trying to strip him of his 2nd Amendment rights.
While it may "be their fault" it's still complete and utter bullshit and I only hope that people who support that kind of "justice" have an opportunity to receive it one day themselves.
I have been dealing with the concept of the real world during a life time of military and L/E service and find many view the world with rose colored glasses and place to much trust in their fellow man who they know nothing about.
As to being arrested through no fault of your own is bull crap and while most will claim ignorance of the law the use of just a little common sense would keep most arrest free.
Arrests should not deprive anyone of any rights. Convictions may or may not be another story.
ICANHITHIMMAN
02-26-13, 17:50
Someone sent me this
I don't have enough posts for General Discussion forum, but over on Calguns there is a lengthy thread about this case and the key players post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=424665
I didn't follow it too closely, but there have been a few cases stared in the last 5 years that were designed to go to the USSC. this may have been one. If so, the lose was expected and planned for. but you would have to read the thread to confirm that.
in addition to the 7th circuit ruling differently, I am almost positive either heller or mcdonald said you have to allow carry. either concealed or open, or both. But one had to be allowed. both could not be denied.
So, ya, it's frustrating, but the "fat lady" ain't singing yet.
“No FREE man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Jefferson
That's how I see it.
I fully disagree. Constitutional carry is the best method. It doesn't infringe anyone's rights and at the same time if you are a prohibited person and you are caught carrying then you to prison. Pretty simple. Criminals are going to carry a firearm regardless of what the law states.
While I fully expect to get flamed for saying it, the NRA's legal strategy of attempting to strike down any and all gun control laws is a loser. I think a person seeking a CCW should submit to a criminal background check. In my opinion, that's a reasonable restriction. There are restrictions or limits on all rights.
They pushed for a bridge too far in this case and ended up with a decision that blew up in their face.
Magic_Salad0892
02-27-13, 00:02
I fully disagree. Constitutional carry is the best method. It doesn't infringe anyone's rights and at the same time if you are a prohibited person and you are caught carrying then you to prison. Pretty simple. Criminals are going to carry a firearm regardless of what the law states.
I wish they had Constitutional Carry everywhere. It probably won't happen though.
Magic_Salad0892
02-27-13, 00:04
“No FREE man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Jefferson
That's how I see it.
Agreed.
I fully disagree. Constitutional carry is the best method. It doesn't infringe anyone's rights and at the same time if you are a prohibited person and you are caught carrying then you to prison. Pretty simple. Criminals are going to carry a firearm regardless of what the law states.
I concur. Can't beat that.
Here's 2 more people that shouldn't have the right to own any guns. Felony charges for sneaking into a movie... (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/felony-for-sneaking-into-movie-687341)
This will not turn out in our favor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.