Scotus Takes Up New York 2A Case!

[Esq.]

So says Cam Edwards...

Personally, I would have preferred they take up the 9th Circuit Hawaii based case as I think it presents better issues etc...but, skillful argument and opinion drafting can fill in the gaps.

Here it is guys, if you have waited your whole life for "The Defining 2A Case". This is it. Within a year you will know exactly what your Rights are.....or, at least what 9 Justices SAY they are....

Hold on Mabel, this could be a wild ride.....

[Esq.]

CONFIRMATION-

https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-court-carry-gun-self-133604858.html

[Business_Casual]

Cue the mass shooting to happen the week before opening arguments.

[Esq.]

Cue the mass shooting to happen the week before opening arguments.

Count on it. 100%

Either that or crazy gun guy shows up at Coney-Barretts house etc.....

[Whalstib]

Archie Bunker Gun Control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwwD0MwQo5w

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How many different ways can Roberts screw us on this?

[just a scout]

They’ll belly up for this too. Just like Obamacare and everything else. The SC is compromised and just a tool for the oligarchy/Deep State/globalists/etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Esq.]

How many different ways can Roberts screw us on this?

Assuming he votes to join the majority opinion, it is his right as Chief Justice to author the majority opinion. As such, the language he uses will affect how the Right is ultimately understood.

[Alex V]

How many different ways can Roberts screw us on this?

He can vote against and it can still be 5:4 our side but at Esq. said, then he wont be able to dictate the opinion. He may just vote for us 6:3 just so he can screw us like Scalia did with Heller.

[teufelhund1918]

Assuming this goes the liberal way that the supreme court seems to rule these days and they rule that you don't have the right to carry for self defense.. basically you have no right for defending yourself, I wonder how this will play out with all the constitutional carry states. Seems to be more than a 2nd Amendment issue since you could argue the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supposedly as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Completely contrary to the founding principles of this country... no surprise these days though.

[gaijin]

My sense is the SC is finally hearing a 2A case because their Master(s) wanted it heard now.
Thinking this is Plan "G" on Gun Control/Confiscation.

Their ruling will NOT favor us.

[Coal Dragger]

Nope we’re gonna lose this one probably 7-2.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

While good for the confiscation states, I could see it screwing us in purple states like CO. If they allow some restrictions, that would be a net loss for us.

I think Roberts major F U would be some kind of really weak decision that just throws it back to the lower courts and limbo. What we need is a Gay marriage type Kennedy decision that pretty much takes it off the table. No more of this screwing around. Get this out of limbo.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

My understanding is that the core argument is about the constitutionality of the state requiring a person to provide an articulable need to the state's arbitrary satisfaction to carry a gun. My guess is that it will be found unconstitutional. How that plays out in regard to the constitutionality of other licensing schemes such as Shall Issue may be another matter. I doubt Shall Issue would be found unconstitutional anymore than my Amateur Radio License.

[Straight Shooter]

I dont know- Huffpoo is crapping their pants right now. They seem to think we have 6 that will vote FOR the 2A.

[Grand58742]

CONFIRMATION-

https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-court-carry-gun-self-133604858.html

I always chuckle when they say the SCOTUS is a 6-3 conservative majority.

Apparently, they haven't kept up with Roberts' track record as of late.

[teufelhund1918]

So, one of the the demo-commie party end games is for us to have no police/law enforcement agencies and no right or ability for self defense...

[Grand58742]

So, one of the the demo-commie party end games is for us to have no police/law enforcement agencies and no right or ability for self defense...

Some of the tin foil types I'm around think all this emphasis on local LEO investigations and the media blasting nearly every UOF case is paving the way for a Federal LEO type service.

I wouldn't doubt it in the least, but I'm not sure we're at that level yet.

[teufelhund1918]

Some of the tin foil types I'm around think all this emphasis on local LEO investigations and the media blasting nearly every UOF case is paving the way for a Federal LEO type service.

I wouldn't doubt it in the least, but I'm not sure we're at that level yet.

Well, that was one of the Obummer era agendas that they couldn't get passed. As fast as "they" are moving on their agenda, I wouldn't doubt it is too far down the line.

[Grand58742]

Well, that was one of the Obummer era agendas that they couldn't get passed. As fast as "they" are moving on their agenda, I wouldn't doubt it is too far down the line.

Yeah, after I posted that, I felt a little foolish lol

Regardless, I'm not sure if such a thing will fly. Federalizing LEOs all the way down to the local level? Sounds like a disaster in the making... which would fit right in with everything else this Admin is doing.

[BoringGuy45]

Typical for this place: When the SC turns away all the cases, everybody complains. When they take a case...everyone weeps and wails at the inevitable failure. It’s always the shadow government and “The Organization” and the secret cabal controlling the world that is allowing this. Just like how DC v Heller was going to end all private gun ownership, and when it didn’t, it was STILL by design in the 4D chess game The Man has already won. Honestly, I don’t know what anybody wants.

The fact is, this case was going to come about sooner or later. This is as good a court make up as we could hope for in these times.

[C-grunt]

Typical for this place: When the SC turns away all the cases, everybody complains. When they take a case...everyone weeps and wails at the inevitable failure. It’s always the shadow government and “The Organization” and the secret cabal controlling the world that is allowing this. Just like how DC v Heller was going to end all private gun ownership, and when it didn’t, it was STILL by design in the 4D chess game The Man has already won. Honestly, I don’t know what anybody wants.

The fact is, this case was going to come about sooner or later. This is as good a court make up as we could hope for in these times.

We need a like button on this forum. Spot on.

[Esq.]

Typical for this place: When the SC turns away all the cases, everybody complains. When they take a case...everyone weeps and wails at the inevitable failure. It’s always the shadow government and “The Organization” and the secret cabal controlling the world that is allowing this. Just like how DC v Heller was going to end all private gun ownership, and when it didn’t, it was STILL by design in the 4D chess game The Man has already won. Honestly, I don’t know what anybody wants.

The fact is, this case was going to come about sooner or later. This is as good a court make up as we could hope for in these times.

My position is that this is not the best case BUT, it could resolve SOME issues. The Court CAN STILL take up the Hawaii case as well!

I do expect them to affirm the right of self defense- even outside the home. I think they will say that it can be regulated- the states CAN mandate a license (Which is bullshit, there is no "poll tax" etc...for OTHER Constitutional rights) and a procedure for obtaining that license that probably includes a reasonable Marksmanship test etc..., BUT, they are going to have to make provision- even in NY, NJ, HI for "ordinary people" to carry firearms throughout their day without some special reason. They will be allowed to exempt certain venues from carry--Court Houses, Polling Places etc....

I don't think it will do much- other than at the very edges, for people in most places. If you are a gun owner in some shithole- Illinois, California, New Jersey, California, Hawaii etc....it will be of much greater impact.

That's my thought.

[Alex V]

My position is that this is not the best case BUT, it could resolve SOME issues. The Court CAN STILL take up the Hawaii case as well!

I do expect them to affirm the right of self defense- even outside the home. I think they will say that it can be regulated- the states CAN mandate a license (Which is bullshit, there is no "poll tax" etc...for OTHER Constitutional rights) and a procedure for obtaining that license that probably includes a reasonable Marksmanship test etc..., BUT, they are going to have to make provision- even in NY, NJ, HI for "ordinary people" to carry firearms throughout their day without some special reason. They will be allowed to exempt certain venues from carry--Court Houses, Polling Places etc....

I don't think it will do much- other than at the very edges, for people in most places. If you are a gun owner in some shithole- Illinois, California, New Jersey, California, Hawaii etc....it will be of much greater impact.

That's my thought.

Even if states like NJ get slapped down by this case, they won't have reciprocity with any state anyway, so you're right, at most if will only help those people.

[just a scout]

Yeah, after I posted that, I felt a little foolish lol

Regardless, I'm not sure if such a thing will fly. Federalizing LEOs all the way down to the local level? Sounds like a disaster in the making... which would fit right in with everything else this Admin is doing.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/10/remember_obamas_civilian_national_security_force.html


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Esq.]

Even if states like NJ get slapped down by this case, they won't have reciprocity with any state anyway, so you're right, at most if will only help those people.

That's a very interesting situation actually - because, I have the SAME First Amendment rights in every state. Same right against search and seizure etc...in every state. I think even those states are going to have to allow "out of towners" to carry guns. How that works in actual practice...remains to be seen.

[pag23]

My sense is the SC is finally hearing a 2A case because their Master(s) wanted it heard now.
Thinking this is Plan "G" on Gun Control/Confiscation.

Their ruling will NOT favor us.

I agreed with this unfortunately.. especially since it is being heard during the Chiden administration...

[sinister]

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
For the serious anti-terrorism and seditious gun criminals we'll need a secret federal police like the FBI, concerned with FISA and internal protection of the Democrat Party.

Germany had one. They called it the State Secret Police.

We know it historically by its acronym: GEheime STAatsPOlizei.

You know. The Gestapo. I'm sure the Biden Administration will give it an Americanized acronym.

[titsonritz]

Count on it. 100%

Either that or crazy gun guy shows up at Coney-Barretts house etc.....

In that case, I hope she shoot him in the face and then votes accordingly.

[just a scout]

For the serious anti-terrorism and seditious gun criminals we'll need a secret federal police like the FBI, concerned with FISA and internal protection of the Democrat Party.

Germany had one. They called it the State Secret Police.

We know it historically by its acronym: GEheime STAatsPOlizei.

You know. The Gestapo. I'm sure the Biden Administration will give it an Americanized acronym.

You know that translates to Homeland Security Police, Right? I think it’s already in place for the past twenty years, waiting on the opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[P2Vaircrewman]

Some of the tin foil types I'm around think all this emphasis on local LEO investigations and the media blasting nearly every UOF case is paving the way for a Federal LEO type service.

I wouldn't doubt it in the least, but I'm not sure we're at that level yet.

Remember when Obama said we need Civilian National Security Force.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/10/remember_obamas_civilian_national_security_force.html

[BoringGuy45]

Remember when Obama said we need Civilian National Security Force.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/10/remember_obamas_civilian_national_security_force.html

I wish people would stop misquoting that. We sound as bad as the left when we take things like that out of context. As much as I don't like Obama, I have to concede that he never said he wanted an armed Civilian Security Force. He was talking about putting as much money into job programs and the Peace Corps as we do into the military.

Ibram Kendi, on the other hand, HAS called for the establishment of a nation secret police force that would have complete control over the country to investigate claims of racism and enact "disciplinary measures" against those who violate.

[SteyrAUG]

Ibram Kendi, on the other hand, HAS called for the establishment of a nation secret police force that would have complete control over the country to investigate claims of racism and enact "disciplinary measures" against those who violate.

"In July 2020, he assumed the position of director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University."

Jesus Christ how do I get a job like that?

Can I be the director of the "Center for the Study of Ongoing Tribalism / Gang Violence in Major Metropolitan Areas?" Either that or "Stripper Culture Studies", I'm good with either one so long as I have competitive salary and benefits and all my research is tax deductible.

[teufelhund1918]

You know that translates to Homeland Security Police, Right? I think it’s already in place for the past twenty years, waiting on the opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Who knows who is doing what in the gubbamint. This is just crazy. Who knows where this is leading:

https://news.yahoo.com/the-postal-service-is-running-a-running-a-covert-operations-program-that-monitors-americans-social-media-posts-160022919.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr

[Coal Dragger]

Typical for this place: When the SC turns away all the cases, everybody complains. When they take a case...everyone weeps and wails at the inevitable failure. It’s always the shadow government and “The Organization” and the secret cabal controlling the world that is allowing this. Just like how DC v Heller was going to end all private gun ownership, and when it didn’t, it was STILL by design in the 4D chess game The Man has already won. Honestly, I don’t know what anybody wants.

The fact is, this case was going to come about sooner or later. This is as good a court make up as we could hope for in these times.

Well stated. That doesn’t change the fact the court is extremely unlikely to rule that individual states are obligated to issue permits for private citizens to carry firearms in public for any reason at all.

The best that might come of this is they rule that states do have to issue permits to purchase without a law abiding citizen showing good cause. Even that may be out of the scope of this case.

So I’m predicting a loss on this one for our side as most likely, with a slim chance of an extremely narrow convoluted ruling penned by Roberts in our favor that effectively changes nothing.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Going after concealed carry is like the left when they try to do gun confiscation’s before they have a registry. We need to get the hardware legalized first, more than seven rounds in a semi automatic handgun, magazine fed rifles, and magazines with at least 30 rounds. That’s the battle you have to fight first. Otherwise you are going to have the legal right to carry firearms in public as long as they are a flintlock.

Like I said before, gay marriage came to Scotus, and they gave the green light, without sending it back down for more analysis and other court cases to fill out the edges of it. We need the same thing on the gear side like I said above. No ambiguous language that can be parsed and screwed with later. The abortion “right“ has so much legal trouble because it’s written as a piece of crap ruling. It leaves a lot of ways for it to be manipulated. The gay marriage ruling leaves no room for it to be screwed with. That’s the kind of decision we need for guns. Plus if they put it down in black-and-white, and then they either pack the court or through attrition get the votes to start to screw with it or take it away, it is then just a blatant power grab obvious to everyone, for which a price has to be paid.

John Roberts has been made to understand that gun rights are a major driver of partisan politics today. And the longer he puts off honoring the true intent in meaning of the Second Amendment, the more political the Supreme Court becomes.

[hotrodder636]

It sure does seem/sound like this is the path the left of the country are trying to take us down. Scary times ahead.


For the serious anti-terrorism and seditious gun criminals we'll need a secret federal police like the FBI, concerned with FISA and internal protection of the Democrat Party.

Germany had one. They called it the State Secret Police.

We know it historically by its acronym: GEheime STAatsPOlizei.

You know. The Gestapo. I'm sure the Biden Administration will give it an Americanized acronym.

[BoringGuy45]

Well stated. That doesn’t change the fact the court is extremely unlikely to rule that individual states are obligated to issue permits for private citizens to carry firearms in public for any reason at all.

The best that might come of this is they rule that states do have to issue permits to purchase without a law abiding citizen showing good cause. Even that may be out of the scope of this case.

So I’m predicting a loss on this one for our side as most likely, with a slim chance of an extremely narrow convoluted ruling penned by Roberts in our favor that effectively changes nothing.

It would be a lot of legal and mental gymnastics to try and justify that point of view. People carried weapons without permits in public for years before carry bans and permits became a thing. For the originalists on the court, they'll have to find some way to suggest that the Founding Fathers never intended that to be the case. I cannot, for the life of me, see Barrett and Kavanaugh, who have already ruled in favor of carry in lower courts, suddenly changing their minds and overruling their own precedent. Thomas and Alito have been consistently pro-2A. The other two are questionable, but even Gorsuch leans more pro-2A than against. I think there's a good chance this case goes the right way.

We were wrong about Heller and McDonald. Maybe we need to start being optimistic.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think the decision will be narrow in focus. 'May Issue' licensing schemes are unreasonable and a guise to generally forbid carry. I believe it will likely be found unconstitutional. Regulating the right to bear arms with 'Shall Issue' licensing schemes is likely to remain. Anyone looking for a constitutional carry decision will be disappointed. Remember, Scalia voted favorably in the Heller decision but wrote this: 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"

[BoringGuy45]

I think the decision will be narrow in focus. 'May Issue' licensing schemes are unreasonable and a guise to generally forbid carry. I believe it will likely be found unconstitutional. Regulating the right to bear arms with 'Shall Issue' licensing schemes is likely to remain. Anyone looking for a constitutional carry decision will be disappointed. Remember, Scalia voted favorably in the Heller decision but wrote this: 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, that of course, was in the days when open carry was normal and concealed carry was the behavior of an assassin. I'd imagine he didn't mean that the entirety of prohibiting carry outside the home was constitutional; simply, that the regulation of how a weapon could be carried was, in his opinion, constitutional.

[Coal Dragger]

It would be a lot of legal and mental gymnastics to try and justify that point of view. People carried weapons without permits in public for years before carry bans and permits became a thing. For the originalists on the court, they'll have to find some way to suggest that the Founding Fathers never intended that to be the case. I cannot, for the life of me, see Barrett and Kavanaugh, who have already ruled in favor of carry in lower courts, suddenly changing their minds and overruling their own precedent. Thomas and Alito have been consistently pro-2A. The other two are questionable, but even Gorsuch leans more pro-2A than against. I think there's a good chance this case goes the right way.

We were wrong about Heller and McDonald. Maybe we need to start being optimistic.

Maybe you missed it but here lately “mental gymnastics” is a SCOTUS specialty.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I do think that this is the best time to move forward all the cases for the best outcomes that we can hope for. It isn’t going to get any better on the SCOTUS front.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

And, that of course, was in the days when open carry was normal and concealed carry was the behavior of an assassin. I'd imagine he didn't mean that the entirety of prohibiting carry outside the home was constitutional; simply, that the regulation of how a weapon could be carried was, in his opinion, constitutional.

I think so. Although... after 1870s open carry wasn't 'normal' around here. Tennessee was an open carry state but only if it was an army/navy pistol and only if it was carried in the hand. Holster carry wasn't allowed. To open carry holstered or concealed required special deputy status... forget about it.

The aim was that army/navy pistols cost more than what most Blacks could afford (Tennessee banned the sale of inexpensive handguns) and the draconian requirement to carry in-hand made carry on person impossible. These type of laws appeared neutral on paper but were popular in the South during Reconstruction to replace Black Codes. Selective enforcement targeted so-called undesirables.

We've come a long way baby... but the general notion that gun carry is an activity for criminals and law enforcement persists among many.

[P2Vaircrewman]

I think so. Although... after 1870s open carry wasn't 'normal' around here. Tennessee was an open carry state but only if it was an army/navy pistol and only if it was carried in the hand. Holster carry wasn't allowed. To open carry holstered or concealed required special deputy status... forget about it.

The aim was that army/navy pistols cost more than what most Blacks could afford (Tennessee banned the sale of inexpensive handguns) and the draconian requirement to carry in-hand made carry on person impossible. These type of laws appeared neutral on paper but were popular in the South during Reconstruction to replace Black Codes. Selective enforcement targeted so-called undesirables.

We've come a long way baby... but the general notion that gun carry is an activity for criminals and law enforcement persists among many.

Louisiana was generally the same. A gun in a holster was considered concealed by the holster no matter how much of the gun was visible. That was eventually changed and now open carry is legal and a constitutional carry bill has just passed the Senate and is headed for the house. Our Democrat Governor is threating to veto it. Not sure if the votes are there to over ride the veto but this is his last term and I don't see another Democrat being elected 22.

[teufelhund1918]

Louisiana was generally the same. A gun in a holster was considered concealed by the holster no matter how much of the gun was visible. That was eventually changed and now open carry is legal and a constitutional carry bill has just passed the Senate and is headed for the house. Our Democrat Governor is threating to veto it. Not sure if the votes are there to over ride the veto but this is his last term and I don't see another Democrat being elected 22.

I'm in Virginia due to the job... unfortunately. I'm not holding my breath that some sort of Constitutional carry bill is going to pass in this state anytime soon... I'm waiting for just the opposite to happen here. Don't give a dang what they pass though. My rights aren't given by men and those rights are more than just carrying a gun.

[ViperTwoSix]

I think there is a good chance the Supreme Court rules NY violated the constitution. They didn’t take on the larger issue of a right to carry outside the home, only the matter of if the State violated the 2nd Amendment in requiring citizens to essentially “prove a need.” A ruling in favor of the Second Amendment in this case would not only basically ensure that every state would need to become a “shall issue” state (including California) unless the state could prove you are not legally able to possess a firearm. Also, I think this could set up a pretty good legal argument for national reciprocity. If my state issues me a concealed carry permit, that means they have found no reason why I should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. If that is true, then there presumably would be no reason any other state would find that would prohibit me from possessing a firearm. If any state is required to show cause to prohibit me from carrying, and there is none, then I could make an argument that my license in one state should be valid in all states, just like my drivers license.

What most articles haven’t said is that NY did issue a restricted permit, allowing the two citizens to carry in a specific place, but not anywhere else. NY will argue that in doing this they did not violate the 2nd Amendment because they did not fully deny them the right.

Oh, and yes, as others have said, I do believe the media will twist this and there will be gun violence to show “this is why people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns” even though those people would probably not cared about any law or licensing anyway. I’ve already seen one article claiming this ruling could “erode decades of gun control laws” so I’m sure there will be efforts to control the court of public opinion.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Louisiana was generally the same. A gun in a holster was considered concealed by the holster no matter how much of the gun was visible. That was eventually changed and now open carry is legal and a constitutional carry bill has just passed the Senate and is headed for the house. Our Democrat Governor is threating to veto it. Not sure if the votes are there to over ride the veto but this is his last term and I don't see another Democrat being elected 22.

Yeah, taking a stroll through gun carry history reveals that things weren't so gun carry friendly.

Texas:

An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass-knuckles, bowie-knife, or any other kind of knife manufactured or sold for the purposes of offense or defense, unless he had reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall, for the first offense, be punished by fine of not less then than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, and shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person; and for every subsequent offense may, in addition to such fine and forfeiture, be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not exceeding sixty days; and in every case of fine under this section the fined imposed and collected shall go into the treasury of the county in which they may have been imposed; provided, that this section shall not be so contrued as to prohibit any person from keeping or bearing arms on his or her own premises, or at his or her own place of business, nor to prohibit sheriffs or other revenue officers, and other civil officers, from keeping or bearing arms while engaged in the discharge of their official duties, nor to prohibit persons traveling in the State from keeping or carrying arms with their baggage; provided further, that members of the Legislature shall not be included under the term “civil officers” as used in this act. § 2. Any person charged under the first section of this act, who may offer to prove, by way of defense, that he was in danger of an attack on his person, or unlawful interference with his property, shall be required to show that such danger was immediate and pressing, and was of such a nature as to alarm a person of ordinary courage; and that the weapon so carried was borne openly and not concealed beneath the clothing; and if it shall appear that this danger had its origin in a difficulty first commenced by the accused, it shall not be considered as a legal defense.

---------

It was more than a century later before Shall Issue became law.

[Esq.]

Yeah, taking a stroll through gun carry history reveals that things weren't so gun carry friendly.

Texas:

An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass-knuckles, bowie-knife, or any other kind of knife manufactured or sold for the purposes of offense or defense, unless he had reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall, for the first offense, be punished by fine of not less then than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, and shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person; and for every subsequent offense may, in addition to such fine and forfeiture, be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not exceeding sixty days; and in every case of fine under this section the fined imposed and collected shall go into the treasury of the county in which they may have been imposed; provided, that this section shall not be so contrued as to prohibit any person from keeping or bearing arms on his or her own premises, or at his or her own place of business, nor to prohibit sheriffs or other revenue officers, and other civil officers, from keeping or bearing arms while engaged in the discharge of their official duties, nor to prohibit persons traveling in the State from keeping or carrying arms with their baggage; provided further, that members of the Legislature shall not be included under the term “civil officers” as used in this act. § 2. Any person charged under the first section of this act, who may offer to prove, by way of defense, that he was in danger of an attack on his person, or unlawful interference with his property, shall be required to show that such danger was immediate and pressing, and was of such a nature as to alarm a person of ordinary courage; and that the weapon so carried was borne openly and not concealed beneath the clothing; and if it shall appear that this danger had its origin in a difficulty first commenced by the accused, it shall not be considered as a legal defense.

---------

It was more than a century later before Shall Issue became law.

Context is critical.

That was a Carpetbagger, Reconstruction Government passed bill to prevent former Confederates from going armed. The sad thing was that once the Natives were able to take control again, they kept the law around- and used it, selectively enforced of course, to keep blacks disarmed while KKK Night Riders ran around the countryside intimidating and murdering people.

[utahjeepr]

There is defacto law and dejure law. In the 80's in Texas it was illegal to carry concealed and illegal to carry a loaded weapon in a car. Everyone did it. It was common practice to put your handgun on the dashboard if you got pulled over. The officer would put it on the hood, deal with whatever you got pulled over for, then set it back on your dash when he was done. Never a word said about it. Hell I was 16 and carried a little Beretta .380 cause I often had a lot of cash, repoed cars occasionally, and transported some pricey cars for banks. HPD, Harris County, DPS, nobody cared.

[AndyLate]

When I was young in South Dakota, the older guys claimed they would put their pistol on the dash when they crossed into Nebraska, where there was no concealed carry permitted or allowed.

Pretty much every rancher's pickup had a loaded rifle in it, usually hanging from a gun rack in the back window. Not just .22 lr, 22-250, or 30-30s either - FALs, ARs, Mini 14s (lots), one guy I remember had a Daewoo.

Andy

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Context is critical.

That was a Carpetbagger, Reconstruction Government passed bill to prevent former Confederates from going armed. The sad thing was that once the Natives were able to take control again, they kept the law around- and used it, selectively enforced of course, to keep blacks disarmed while KKK Night Riders ran around the countryside intimidating and murdering people.

Context in post #43. The reality of the matter is that Texas gun carry law didn't greatly change for over a century until Shall Issue became law in the 1990s. Texas continued to ban open carry of handguns until 2016. Draconian carry law was the norm across most of America.

The point here is looking back at how gun carry and 2A protections were viewed during the period. Also court decisions. Rulings below were that 2A protections applied to limiting federal government, not the states.

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

[THCDDM4]

Context in post #43. The reality of the matter is that Texas gun carry law didn't greatly change for over a century until Shall Issue became law in the 1990s. Texas continued to ban open carry of handguns until 2016. Draconian carry law was the norm across most of America.

The point here is looking back at how gun carry and 2A protections were viewed during the period. Also court decisions. Rulings below were that 2A protections applied to limiting federal government, not the states.

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

It’s so convenient how SCOTUS interprets these things isn’t it?

I mean the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law is foisted upon states in all sorts of ways- however the 2nd amendment that is clearly defined, stated and intended is constantly diminished by committees and how could it be anything other than a limit on federal congress- no states can do whatever they want on that one...?

It’s insane!

There is a longer period in our history of open/concealed carry being the norm and places like tombstone and their laws banning carrying of firearms that sought to keep the power in the hands of the few- well shit like that is exactly why we have a second amendment in the first place- to fight tyranny.

Not to mention SCOTUS just usurped constitutional review and was never granted that power by the constitution itself or any law- they just started doing it and not stopping it dead in it’s tracks was one of the worst things the people ever allowed.