|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
On open carry, concealed carry, and Heller
Over the years, we've had quite a bit of discussion of what Heller means for carry, whether it be open or concealed, but that discussion has been distributed across multiple threads through time. The purpose of this thread is to concentrate that discussion into a single thread, to act as a sort of "definitive thread" for the issue.
And what better way to start than to lay out the issue, describe the claims, show what the Heller decision says and cites with respect to these things, and draw some at least tentative conclusions based on arguments that have been raised in the past? That's my intent here, but obviously we can, and perhaps even should, extend the discussion beyond those boundaries. First, the Heller decision itself that I'll use for reference is the one on Google Scholar, here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...80926445491577 While mrrabbit (a proponent of the notion that the 2nd Amendment protects only open carry, and that concealed carry can be forbidden utterly, and that even open carry of concealable arms can likewise be forbidden utterly) asserts that my "copy" of Heller is somehow defective, the link to the decision I provide above is what I've been using before, and what I'll continue to use in the absence of evidence that shows that it differs materially from the contents of the decision on SCOTUS' site, here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten.../06/07-290.pdf, because it's easier for me to link to specific portions of the Google Scholar version. Note, however, that I have read the PDF version as well and have found nothing to materially distinguish it from the Google Scholar version. They look the same to me in all the ways that matter. There are multiple sets of claims with respect to carry that have been made. My focus will be on those made by open-carry-only proponents, but we needn't limit the discussion in this thread to only those claims. But as to the claims of the open-carry-only proponents, I'll attempt to raise each and (in followup messages) address each. Their claims are:
There are others who believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect "carry", but in such a way as to allow governments at whatever level to decide what forms to allow, and when, and where. For instance, some argue that it is permissible for a government to forbid open carry as long as concealed carry is available as a matter of right (some such people seem to also believe that it is permissible to burden the entire exercise of the right with permits), or to forbid concealed carry as long as open carry is available as a matter of right. There are still others who believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect all forms of carry, without exception. All of which is to say that the spectrum of beliefs with respect to what is protected is as varied as the number of possible combinations in existence. My primary focus as I open here is going to be on the set of claims made by open-carry-only proponents, but the discussion in this thread obviously can, and probably should, extend far beyond that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
1) Heller suggests carry is protected by the 2A, but until we get a specific ruling so stating, it's all meaningless speculation (of which I am a fan).
2) Anyone who thinks the originalists are going to sign on to any opinion distinguishing "concealable" arms from "non-concealable" needs to check their meds. "Under 29 inches OAL was considered 'concealable' by the Founding Fathers, but 29.5" and over, not including approved, permanently-affixed muzzle attachments as described in Appendices A-L, was clearly considered by the Founders to be non-concealable. However, since the average height of an American has increased by 14% since the Founding, we find that..." there aren't enough drugs in all the world to get Thomas and Gorsuch to sign on to that, sorry 3) OC only vs whatever -- probably not going to happen. We know that the Founders considered concealing a firearm to be dastardly behavior, and the originalists on the Court will so stipulate, but I don't see those same originalists ready to deny a state's right to force CC and shut down OC. Don't see it. Maybe, it's not impossible, but my personal bet is against it, although I really don't GAF -- I'd be stoked just to have SCOTUS take a case where they'd make such a ruling, regardless of the result.
__________________
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Can I say, IANAL but I am an observer, and...
The current situation:
The consensus among the well-informed on our side is:
The consensus among the well-informed on the other side is:
The non-well-informed opinions from both sides are:
No circuit has supported those non-well-informed opinions so far. We could be surprised, in that there could be a court ruling, any day now, that picks one of the non-well-informed opinions and says, "yup, that's it". But... we could also get a ruling that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified and we don't need to file tax returns! Yeah! Not.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Feel free to repost things in your posting history, to save retyping.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread. Either participate or remain silent.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 02-26-2019 at 10:27 PM.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
*2793 At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
Why the **** is it so hard for you people to read? Both open and concealed, per Heller, are within the meaning of "bearing arms". Last edited by ziegenbock; 02-26-2019 at 8:41 PM.. Reason: Just to add the both open and concealed are protected. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That is because they are professionals and you are wrong. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Concealed carry laws cause the "gun free zones" ("sensitive areas") of which Heller speaks.
People know that a few cops can't protect everyone, so they panic and "need a law" to ban any sort of carry. So open carry is on a firmer footing as the fundamental right. (You have to look back probably to English cases on this, been awhile since i read these decisions.) Police need more latitude in regulating time/place/manner of concealed, for general policing and also for truly sensitive areas (but not so wide as any place where children congregate). But concealed carry must be protected at some level as incident to the fundamental right of open carry (concealing backup, or staying warm with jacket). Dealing with temperature fluctuations should be allowed. Perhaps a distinction might be made regarding deep concealment. Bottom line, more regulation permissible for CC, but OC must be allowed in all but the most sensitive areas. And maybe even those.
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets. Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office) Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts Radio ads: http://Protect.FM FREE training: http://guntrust.org FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
2799
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edited to add: thanks for the thread idea, KCBrown. Last edited by ritter; 02-27-2019 at 8:27 AM.. Reason: add |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
So to reiterate, my understanding of the argument that the only-open-carry people are making is that Heller says:
And that the basis for the argument that Heller says the above is that it cites cases that say the above. What about the above understanding fails to match the real argument being made, and what needs to be substituted in its stead? Note that if you fail to substantively answer this question, I'll be forced to presume that my understanding is correct, and proceed on that basis. Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 02-27-2019 at 10:06 AM.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Because the citation reasoning that the open-carry-only proponents use is critical to their argument, I'll address that first, because it affects everything going forward.
As I mentioned, the claim is that Heller's citation of sources that make the claims in question is the equivalent of Heller making those claims directly. But there are really two variants of this:
Here is a list of all cases that Heller cites, in order of their first appearance in the decision (footnoted citations are towards the end -- I can reorder this list so that it reflects the footnoted citations as if they were part of the main text if that is desired):
Note that this list isn't necessarily exhaustive, and it's just the court cases. But citations of other works, e.g., Blackstone's Commentaries, dictionaries, and other written works are perhaps equally important. Also note that some of the links to older decisions don't actually take you to those decisions, because Google Scholar doesn't have them on file. I will, when going over specific decisions, provide links to those decisions if the link for it above doesn't get you to the actual text of the decision, but that'll be at the point of discussion. I'll try to remember to update the corresponding link above when I do that, but no guarantees. So: on to the question of context. In the case of context-free citation, then all citations are incorporated in full as if the Court were stating them directly. But this clearly blows the "concealed carry is not protected" claim out of the water, because one of the cases so incorporated is Bliss, and Bliss explicitly states that concealed carry is protected. There are other problems with that approach as well. Precedent is a time-ordered thing. Whatever is stated last is what controls. If one insists that cited decisions are incorporated in their entirety as if the Court were stating them in full, then citation of outdated precedent would make it new again. One of the cited cases is Cruikshank, in which the Court held that the scope of the First Amendment's protection is limited to federal laws and actions. If citations are incorporated in full as if the Court were stating them directly, then the effect here would be to remove First Amendment protection against the states, to undo the effects of the decisions that came later. The Court would have to cite those later decisions as well in order to negate this problem. As regards Cruikshank, the Court would have to cite DeJonge v Oregon in order to prevent reversal of its own precedent. But the Court failed to do that here. And that's just for starters. There are 50 cases (perhaps more) cited by Heller. It's highly likely that there are other effects that would occur under a "citations are incorporated in full as if the Court stated them itself" approach. But Bliss alone is sufficient to destroy that approach even if nothing else does. I'll address the question of context-sensitive citations in a separate message, as that is going to be a long one (likely multi-part), seeing how it requires analysis of the context of every case upon which the only-open-carry argument depends.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 04-26-2020 at 6:16 PM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Disagree on the purpose of defining "bear" since it's central to the meaning of the Second and considerable time was spent in the opinion on it. Definition of "bear" was required to find:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#15
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Part of the issue at hand is that BOTH sides "read into" Heller and McDonald what they desire by parsimoniously dissecting portions rather than looking at context, followed by near-absurd extrapolation without the context of what the decisions actually said. As an example from Heller as it pertains to this thread...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From Aymette... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In other words, all that was established is that the State may regulate the type, manner, and location of carry of arms. In addition, such limitations MAY be authorized by law, but the right to "keep" such arms MAY NOT be forbidden or infringed and that "a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the legislature had the right to punish him for it..." Heller and Andrews both note "personal defense (liberties)," placing greater or, at a minimum, equal emphasis on that portion which I placed in bold above - the use of which will properly train and render him efficient in defense of his own liberties, as well as of the State. The logical inference is that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT limited to service in the militia (defense of the State), neither is "bear (carry)" limited to the home or, as Thomas stated in his now famous 2017 dissent... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We've reached a point where SCOTUS is verging on being forced to 'define' (or re-define) boundaries for an enumerated right. Roberts has publicly declared that he is loathe to have the Court 'dictate' or 'deliver' social policy. The problem is, that's actually how the Government defines the fundamental role of SCOTUS... Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 02-27-2019 at 5:33 PM.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In my opinion, the decision in NYSRPA v NYC may provide the parameters for answering the open vs concealed question.
While I don’t expect a direct answer, I see this case addressing the “2 step test” many of the lower courts have adopted in determining if a gun control law passes constitutional muster: 1. Is a constitutional right being infringed (based on history/text)? 2. If yes, does the law pass intermediate scrutiny? Now, in practice, the courts skip right to step 2; everything passes intermediate scrutiny, no matter how ridiculous, and therefore step 1, they opine, is superfluous. Why is this important for OC/CC? Because SCOTUS could say “yes, the test concept is right, but the 2A is a fundamental right and intermediate scrutiny is too low a bar...it must be something like strict scrutiny”. (like when encumbering any other constitutional right). Or, it could say Something like “the rights and prohibitions that existed at the time the constitution was written are set in stone and can’t be touched”. If it’s the former (some type of scrutiny), it may give states more flexibility in regulating OC vs CC. Even if OC was the historic right, could restricting it be considered “narrowly tailored” (part of the strict scrutiny test) if CC is permitted? |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#18
|
||||||
|
||||||
What we're currently dealing with is summarized in this piece...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Such a rigid framework would work against the core aspects of 'strict scrutiny' ... Quote:
The specifics of kcbrown's example... Quote:
Quote:
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Trapped reminds me of what I thought in law school-that the judges/justices decide on the result they want and then pick the level of scrutiny that achieves that result. I think the Ninth has gone well beyond that in this context: Knowing that it has to apply at least intermediate scrutiny in order to comply with Heller, it uses the language of that test to disguise that it is really applying rational basis analysis. It gives nothing but lip service to the right and in almost every instance (except Judge O'Scanlain) allows the government to impose whatever restriction it wants, on no more than the alleged "significant public interest." Despite the existence of battling and contradictory expert testimony, which in all cases should require a rial and not a resolution "as a matter of law," the Court applies its own yardstick to what constitutes evidence of that significant public interest and whether the regulation or law actually furthers that interest.
" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I wantto focus on California. You can't outlaw open carry and be a mayissue state. That's infringement. Scalia wrotethat RKBA is not unlimited. Some regulation is ok. Calif has gone too far. That ismy focus with this thread. Either overturn Mulford or be shallissue. End of story.
FrankMo |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
IANAL and I am not able to argue the fine points of Constitutional law. I admit I am out of my league. I do follow this topic because it is near and dear to me.
I am a trained scientist and that training has taught me to reduce complex problems into parts so I can better understand them. With that here is the 2A: Quote:
Where I have issues with the OC is the only form protected under the 2A crowd is their argument is based on the Founding Fathers opinions that people who conceal carry are scoundrels and men of ill-repute. That is an opinion. Most would have likely thought laws against pornography were acceptable and should not be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Many might be appalled to permit a church of Satanism or to allow Wiccans to practice without legal repercussions because they had a First Amendment Right. This I know from my family history. I had an ancestor who signed the Declaration of Independence and his son was a Baptist minister who migrated westward from South Carolina preaching the evils of liquor, slavery, and the devil. He was disowned by his slave owning father. He eventually ended up in Michigan. The family story is he always carried more than a couple guns concealed and that is how he stayed alive after upsetting so many people in the southern towns he passed through. He was not a proper southern gentleman. Read the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights and none of them end with the definitive of "shall not be infringed". So even if the Founding Fathers expected some limits on the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, they made it clear the 2A was not to be infringed upon. The Amendment itself says so. I fall into the camp that believes both OC and CC should be protected. Reality is, SCOTUS will do its balancing act. People want to pretend they are safe and pretend they have some protection from BGs getting guns. Look at how many here think BG checks actually work to keep guns away from criminals and think that UBC like we have here in CA are effective in reducing gun crime. In my day to day life, I want CC. I do not want to be a target. OC makes me a target. In CA, OC only would ultimately mean no carry. Just about every business would put up a no guns sign so I could not carry anywhere during my day to day life. I would be forced to keep the gun locked in my truck and risking having it stolen when I am away from it. I will not have it on me when I need it. If I can CC, nobody but I will know I have the gun. I can use it if I need it otherwise it is out of sight and out of mind. I will give the no gun signs their just due, I will ignore them. The store owner will feel good, the anti-gun people will feel good, and I will still be able to protect myself and my family if I need to. Bearing a gun should be the same as voting. If I do not need to pass a test to vote, then I do not need to pass a test to carry a gun. Just like with voting, any obstacle the state puts in the way to gun ownership or carrying a gun, it ends up discouraging citizens from exercising their right. We have to deal with reality and American politics is always about compromise. In the end I expect the issue to be settled with a compromise. I just wish the OC people would stop insisting that OC is the only way. Anti-gun states, if forced to allow only one will still win if it is OC. Most businesses will ban guns and will have the blessing of their insurance companies who will raise their rates if they do not. With the Federal GFSZ, OC would not be permitted in 95% of urban areas anyway causing many to not even attempt it. (Unless my understanding of the law is wrong). Personally, I think both are permitted under the 2A but will be happy if SCOTUS rules that at least one has to be permitted. Personally, I want CC because that is my preferred method. I am leaving CA soon for a free state that has Constitutional Carry so I no longer care about CA.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians. A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun. Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)? --Librarian |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Specifics and details are required here. ‘Yes they did!’ ‘No they did not!’ get us nowhere; nowhere posts are off topic for this thread.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
2 justices who would be relied upon for votes wrote in the Peruta dissent
The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. How does this fit with OC is the right and the ONLY right? IF they believed OC is the right and the ONLY right, there is no reason to oppose the denial of dissent of Peruta because the 9th would have "gotten it right". You can go on and on about Heller, Baldwin, exc. but when 2 justices come out with this dissent, it seems to me you've got a little problem. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Other way round, sir,
Create an argument. Make assertions point by point. Provide specific supporting documentation.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Point - I was out of town, limited access.
Jeremiah, wrong thread for your post. Nice in a different thread, perhaps, but this one has some formalities.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The dichotomy between OC and CC, as Jeremiah points out and "others" ignore, is that times have changed. When we were colonies and then states, open carry in an almost entirely agrarian society on the edge of wild forests full of animals and Indians, many of which and whom were dangerous was the norm. Against this background, statutes outlawing concealed carry are understandable, and the case law approving of these statutes on the basis that concealed carry ws, in essence, immoral, are perfectly understandable.
But as the country became more settled, and particularly in the urbanized and industrialized cities, open carry--or any carry for that matter--became increasingly rare. Mill workers did not bring firearms to the job, if the workers could even afford them, because the country was settled and the risk of meeting wild animals or Indians remote. Open carry in the cities virtually disappeared except for police officers/sheriffs and the military. The bearing of arms for urbanites was almost exclusively for the purpose of hunting. Although farmers were more likely to carry a shotgun or rifle if any game should come his way or varmints needed eradicating, when the West became increasingly settled resulted in fewer and fewer handguns being openly carried by the beginning of the 20th century. By the roaring twenties, pocket carry of small caliber vest guns was far more common than holstered handguns. Society became used to the absence of firearms--and gradually, those who carried, unless obviously police officers, were viewed with suspicion. In short, as proven by the open carry crusaders five or six years ago, openly carried firearms are considered threatening by the average urbanite, a population group that has a clear majority in public offices in many states, especially the two coasts. When people see a hip holstered hand gun, and without otherwise judging the outward appearance of the bearers), they call the police. But concealed carry is "out of sight, out of mind." If you do not perceive it, it is not threatening. Historically, unlicensed open carry was the recognized right, as was common in that age, and concealed carry could be banned or permitted by license. But that history is now at odds with the common practice of most urban areas in this day and age. People in liberal areas do not want open carry--ever. So even if it is allowed as a right, people will find ways to "shame" or burden the practice. And this is to say nothing of the GFSZA, which for all practical purposes bans unlicensed open carry in every city and town/ state that has such a law. By contrast, licensed CCW is generally exempt from the zone, even if barred from entering campuses (a variable restriction). Given the changes in society, especially in urban areas, and given he conflict between rural areas and urban areas, we see that what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, What is fine in Arizona is anathema in SoCal and the Bay Area. If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, and recognizing that your role is to resolve disputes not set new ones in motion, your choices are as follows" 1. Anything goes (con carry) 2. permitless Open carry, permitted (shall or may issue) CCW 3. permitted open carry (allowing carry in GFSZs), banned or permitted ccw. 4. A right to bear with states free to enact whatever is suitable for that state, as long a some form of "to bear" is permitted (except in sensitive places) on a permitless or "shall issue" licensing basis, all laws subject to strict scrutiny. Given the options, and with the caveat that the bearing of arms in some fashion must be allowed in order to fully recognize the right, where do you think the court will end up? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Given that we have 2 originalists sitting on the Court, and given that their votes are absolutely critical for any 2A victory, their approach is very important. Quote:
__________________
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Open carry is ultrasound for the Second Amendment. Without it, we are ghetto-ized. To answer question, SCOTUS should rule 1.5: permitless OC, and shall-issue CC. Both are important rights and probably both protected under 2A, but OC is more fundamental because only OC educates the public and provides accountability that you are actually carrying like you should, and in the way that you should. Juridically, it is simply not possible to hold that ONLY CC is protected. As a practical matter, if OC is a right, states will rush to allow CC (remember Ohio?). And most people will CC rather than OC, which is unfortunate. They should be doing both.
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets. Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office) Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts Radio ads: http://Protect.FM FREE training: http://guntrust.org FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE Last edited by guntrust; 03-06-2019 at 5:50 AM.. Reason: clarify |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
We're drifting here.
Let us try to hew closer to the line Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Can't they say, without contradicting themselves, that states are free to regulate these things in their own way with respect to requirements/hoops to jump through but the regulations must exist in such a way as to allow the average, law abiding person to satisfy them? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
@mrrabbit as usual you are being obtuse and pedantic.
To clarify, I expect no case of any kind, locked or not, may be required. Your comment is doubly bizarre, assuming a firearm is in a “gun shaped” case, or let’s play your silly game, a clear case or a case with the words “gun inside” The point is that it appears to me from Heller that the right to carry and transport (transport is just a subset of carry) loaded firearms is what the 2nd amendment recognizes, so rules about what kind of case, any requirement for a case, locked, unlocked, and especially unloaded, will likely be struck down, but I am just a random person on the internet what do I know. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
This is the first time I've seen him make a directly claim about what SCOTUS has said. One rarely gets this kind of opportunity. Apologies in advance to others.
Therefore ... Oh yeah? Then quote SCOTUS saying in Heller that prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld. No, you don't get to just say "see Heller", or "it says what it says", or any of that other BS that you use to weasel your way out of properly defending your position. Either quote exactly what SCOTUS itself, and not some decision it cited or quoted, explicitly said (no paraphrasing, no interpretation -- only a direct cut'n'paste from Heller will do), or admit you don't know what SCOTUS itself actually said.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 04-22-2020 at 9:27 PM.. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
You are completely clueless, and you post bad and irrelevant advice. Don't.
Last edited by Offwidth; 04-23-2020 at 10:06 AM.. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
So, mrrabbit, are you going to answer this or not?
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
It is a good reminder for you to bring up again. Truly it is valuable to quote from the source which forms and informs one's opinions. In this case, I did
quote from Heller but the Sylvilagus did not. In the future I will try to include direct quotations from the Congressional Record, the ACA ruling, and the Raisin Board Cases, as they apply to the cases at hand.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. Last edited by CCWFacts; 04-24-2020 at 12:51 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|