Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2121  
Old 05-14-2022, 12:40 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,451
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that is not the right to right to keep and bear concealable handguns, it is the right to keep and bear arms.
Arms include swords and long guns, which cannot be carried concealed.
I logged back in after a loooong time to make the same argument. I'm sure Thomas is writing the opinion. He has seniority and is openly known to be very unhappy with the current state of respect for 2A. I think he stayed on the court during Trump's presidency specifically to pen his magnum opus... and this case is it.

The constitution identifies a right to bear arms. I don't see Thomas inventing a distinguishing rule between rifles and pistols. We have the right to carry rifles, and they are not concealable. I don't believe he will leave manner to the discretion of the state. It's called "constitutional carry" for a reason. If you require a permit from the state to exercise a right, it's not a right. If a state enacted permit requirements to buy a gun, it would be struck down. And given how dismissive blue states have been of the right in the last decade, I doubt Thomas will leave philosophical wiggle-room. At worst I could see permits remaining for concealed carry at the discretion of the state, but in addition to open not as a replacement.

TL;DR: We gonna have a massive party by the end of this term, boys
Reply With Quote
  #2122  
Old 05-14-2022, 1:02 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,137
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by green grunt View Post
^some of us will die off before meaningful change ever really happens.


so true...
At this point in my life, I'll risk carrying without permission from the state.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #2123  
Old 05-14-2022, 8:22 AM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
... If a state enacted permit requirements to buy a gun, it would be struck down...
Right now Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a FOID to purchase any gun and Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New York and North Carolina require one to purchase a handgun.

Possibly Justice Thomas could add one sentence to his opinion striking down these restrictions since it is generally not possible to carry any arm without first purchasing it, for most people. Having to rely on the gift of a firearm in order to carry it seems like an infringement to me.
Reply With Quote
  #2124  
Old 05-14-2022, 9:42 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,813
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
Right now Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a FOID to purchase any gun and Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New York and North Carolina require one to purchase a handgun.

Possibly Justice Thomas could add one sentence to his opinion striking down these restrictions since it is generally not possible to carry any arm without first purchasing it, for most people. Having to rely on the gift of a firearm in order to carry it seems like an infringement to me.
Or building it themselves, which is currently, also under attack.

If I were Justice Thomas, I would make a very short opinion, call it the “Shall not be infringed” level of scrutiny, that no arms-related law that in any way burdens the exercise of keeping or bearing arms (defining arms to include future technology not available at the time of founding or this opinion) by the people, passes constitutional muster except those commonly held at the time of ratification; e.g. felons in possession, sensitive places (limited to what was originally codified: courts, govt. buildings, private residences), and that the federal and state governments have no business regulating arms against the people (including manufacturing, absent normal workplace concerns), and their only function allowable is to verify if you are allowed to possess based on that very short list, without interfering with the expression and utilization of the right.

NFA and GCA are not long-standing prohibitions based on logic the court has already demonstrated.

If they are willing to throw out RvW, they should be equally ready to throw out Miller and all progeny, and even the compromises in Heller that Kennedy demanded for his vote.

And, BTW, yes that also means being able to possess nukes, which really puts the onus back on where this type of regulation is properly exercised, as constitutional amendments, i.e. where three-quarters or more of the country deems such a law as necessary and prudent.

Since this case is about keeping and bearing, there probably isn’t the breadth available to address where the 2A is most lax: on lawful usage of arms. But, with rights come responsibilities and discharging and injuring are potential liabilities that the right may not protect against.

However, the 2A is explicitly clear (and implicitly in others) that at least one use is protected, and that is regularity with respect to training with and being prepared to use arms to fight, as opposed to defending the home, hunting, or other lawful uses. If anything, Ukraine should be a current example of the continued need for such activity.

The reason only national defense is called out in the 2A is that the Founders believed in federated powers, and protecting the home and hunting were state-level issues (including state militias) articulated by 10A and found in the state-level 2A analogues, e.g. Vermont’s, that calls out protecting the home and predates the 2A. Outright ignoring and subversion by states that prevented this from being included in their state constitutions are what got us to this point of having to overrule them (Heller and McDonald findings of personal defense rights), instead of embracing the constitution and freedom it recognized, they internalized the dissenting opinion and made that their basis for further infringement. A more concise and forceful overruling is necessary.

Lawful usage of arms is unfortunately open to much more interpretation than keeping or bearing, but 2A was never intended to bless long-standing illegal activity like murder, insurrection, riotous action, intimidation (dangerous or unusual), etc. Those are long-standing prohibitions, not becoming a felon and having your rights canceled because you don’t have a number on your gun and not giving that information to the government.

There is still more of the 2A yet to be litigated, but keeping and bearing should be a done deal with any hope.

.02

Last edited by Robotron2k84; 05-14-2022 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2125  
Old 05-14-2022, 12:58 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Or building it themselves, which is currently, also under attack.

If I were Justice Thomas, I would make a very short opinion, call it the “Shall not be infringed” level of scrutiny, that no arms-related law that in any way burdens the exercise of keeping or bearing arms (defining arms to include future technology not available at the time of founding or this opinion) by the people, passes constitutional muster except those commonly held at the time of ratification; e.g. felons in possession, sensitive places (limited to what was originally codified: courts, govt. buildings, private residences), and that the federal and state governments have no business regulating arms against the people (including manufacturing, absent normal workplace concerns), and their only function allowable is to verify if you are allowed to possess based on that very short list, without interfering with the expression and utilization of the right.

NFA and GCA are not long-standing prohibitions based on logic the court has already demonstrated.

If they are willing to throw out RvW, they should be equally ready to throw out Miller and all progeny, and even the compromises in Heller that Kennedy demanded for his vote.

And, BTW, yes that also means being able to possess nukes, which really puts the onus back on where this type of regulation is properly exercised, as constitutional amendments, i.e. where three-quarters or more of the country deems such a law as necessary and prudent.
So what makes you think that Thomas is willing to redefine the right as it was understood at the time of our founding under the "history and tradition" standard?

(tossing unusually dangerous weapons and concealable arms / concealed carry restrictions...)


The majority in Heller were clear that technological advances don't force a redefining of the right...

And even Kagan who wasn't on the Heller court made it clear that Clements "different wavelength" argument during NYSRPA v Bruen hearings were problematic in light of Heller...

And of course, a future arm, stuns guns like the one used by Caetano has already been fleeced out as protected in Caetano v. Massachusetts...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #2126  
Old 05-14-2022, 12:59 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 999
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
I foresee games with the standard of GMC, and absent that, the need for the state legislature, with willing LE agencies, to “analyze” the whole decision (if favorable to the citizenry) for a long time first. Then kill it for Californians by way of endless hoops, insurances, training, verifications, etc. Each of those may need to be litigated, so that will get the states more time. Meanwhile, some of us will die off before meaningful change ever really happens.
You are correct. As long as a permit requirement is allowed to stand, CA and others will simply respond by making any, or many, of a long list of changes, that should not be discussed publicly (no need to feed the beast) that will make permits as difficult, expensive, inconvenient, and unavailable as possible.

The same folks who decry ANY requirement for voting, even mere ID, to be "voter suppression" will claim that any 2A suppression is just "common sense gun legislation". We only get our rights back if some form of carry can be done with no permit whatsoever.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #2127  
Old 05-14-2022, 1:37 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
You are correct. As long as a permit requirement is allowed to stand, CA and others will simply respond by making any, or many, of a long list of changes, that should not be discussed publicly (no need to feed the beast) that will make permits as difficult, expensive, inconvenient, and unavailable as possible.

The same folks who decry ANY requirement for voting, even mere ID, to be "voter suppression" will claim that any 2A suppression is just "common sense gun legislation". We only get our rights back if some form of carry can be done with no permit whatsoever.
...meanwhile, where's that lawsuit seeking to ban or constrain gun free zones?

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #2128  
Old 05-14-2022, 2:24 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 9,935
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Not to threadjack; but in common law states, you can be married without a license or any State involvement.
The state does get very much involved. When she decides to leave you for the pool boy and take half your stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #2129  
Old 05-14-2022, 8:08 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 999
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
...meanwhile, where's that lawsuit seeking to ban or constrain gun free zones?

I'm hoping that Thomas takes the broad view of the issue here, and covers this as well. No way to tell though. Given how frustrated he as been for so long about 2A's second class status in the courts. I hope he wants to use this opportunity to make up for decades of a right being denied, not just remedy right denial method #37 of many.

I really view our 2A situation as similar to the voting rights issues of Jim Crow where Congress finally realized that the opportunities for infringement were essentially endless and you could not solve the problem by striking down one infringement at a time, so Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which included Federal supervision of local laws disenfranchising minorities. That was a legislative solution, and our current issue is judicial, and despite my preference for States' Rights, and narrow judicial rulings, I think a broad, powerful ruling is justified in this case given the history and current practice of endless infringements coupled with 9th Circuit obstinance.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #2130  
Old 05-14-2022, 10:56 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 366
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Now that you mention it….

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
NFA and GCA are not long-standing prohibitions based on logic the court has already demonstrated.

.02
I think I have a better understanding of why New York in their briefs focused so much on the “longstanding” nature of their discriminatory licensing scheme. They were trying to play to the Court’s tendency to leave things up to state legislatures and leave long-standing laws in place.

I’m still puzzled that New York never really addressed the equal protection complaints included in all the amicus briefs.
Reply With Quote
  #2131  
Old 05-14-2022, 11:04 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,813
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
I think I have a better understanding of why New York in their briefs focused so much on the “longstanding” nature of their discriminatory licensing scheme. They were trying to play to the Court’s tendency to leave things up to state legislatures and leave long-standing laws in place.

I’m still puzzled that New York never really addressed the equal protection complaints included in all the amicus briefs.
Validating or acknowledging your opponent’s assertions only makes your case weaker, when you already know you’re going to lose.
Reply With Quote
  #2132  
Old 05-15-2022, 4:20 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,866
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
I think I have a better understanding of why New York in their briefs focused so much on the “longstanding” nature of their discriminatory licensing scheme. They were trying to play to the Court’s tendency to leave things up to state legislatures and leave long-standing laws in place.

I’m still puzzled that New York never really addressed the equal protection complaints included in all the amicus briefs.
Difficult for NY to defend since the state is the one who decides who is similarly situated and who is not in the context of "need"
Reply With Quote
  #2133  
Old 05-15-2022, 6:35 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
I’m still puzzled that New York never really addressed the equal protection complaints included in all the amicus briefs.
Aren't equal protection challenges notoriously difficult to win? That would explain why the plaintiffs don't raise an equal protection challenge and why the defendants didn't address it.
Reply With Quote
  #2134  
Old 05-15-2022, 6:49 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
Aren't equal protection challenges notoriously difficult to win? That would explain why the plaintiffs don't raise an equal protection challenge and why the defendants didn't address it.
The question as changed by the court was:

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Why address anything else?
Reply With Quote
  #2135  
Old 05-15-2022, 7:23 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snailbait View Post
The question as changed by the court was:

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Why address anything else?
What should we read into the question as changed by the Supreme Court - “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment”?

The draft opinion on abortion released last week leads to only one conclusion regardless of the Supreme Court’s answer - the Bruen opinion is going to be a disappointment. There will never be a right to carry a concealed handgun in public. Before the draft opinion released last week on abortion there was hope, enough possible play in what might happen that a good decision was a possibility. Now, I don't think so.

Did the Supreme Court change the question focused on “concealed-carry licenses” accepting New York could prohibit open carry, and thus, it should decide whether the other method carry, in this case concealed carry, should be left available to the petitioners? Choosing NYSRPA v. Bruen as the vehicle to decide whether there was a general right to carry, and that it would leave the method of carry up to the states? This is the framing the NRA has advocated for, and the framing to which New York has acquiesced. Perhaps, but even so, it doesn’t help much.

Or did the Supreme Court frame the question focused that way believing that “concealed carry” and “open carry” were separate and distinct rights that must be evaluated independent of one another? Deciding this was the case to evaluate whether “concealed carry” is a protected right, and saving the question of whether “open carry” is a protected right for another case, say Young v. Hawaii?

The Supreme Court has made it clear time and again from the 19th Century to the 21st Century that is does not view “concealed carry” as a right in and of itself. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” In District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court stated “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.”

Perhaps these statements are dicta. But even so, the statements are clear and unambiguous, as is the history behind them. The Supreme Court would have quite a bit of explaining to do, if it were to disregard those statements completely and decide “concealed carry” was a right in and of itself. With Kennedy and Ginsburg gone and replaced by conservatives who would reverse Roe v. Wade, this is not the Supreme Court of 2015 that decided Obergefell v. Hodges. That is not going to happen in the light of the draft opinion released last week, which shows the majority has no use for newly discovered rights. If the Supreme Court took the case to decide whether “concealed carry” was a protected right in and of itself, the petitioners in NYSRPA v. Bruen lose, and they lose hard.

That leaves us with whether the Supreme Court took the case to decide “whether there is a right to carry” indifferent as to the method of carry. But if so, why narrow the question the way they did? The petitioners phrased the question “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” The question was drafted with the assumption that “open carry” and “concealed carry” are simply different methods of carry, not separate rights. There was no need for the Supreme Court to redraft the question if it did not believe “open carry” and “concealed carry” were separate rights. Perhaps, they had another reason for doing so.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter. Even if the petitioners get their unrestricted licenses for self-defense, it will be because the Supreme Court says either “open carry” or “concealed carry” can be banned as long as the other is available, having assumed “open carry” is banned in New York. This is a loss in the long run. The states will just allow open carry.

Open carry is worthless. Even in deep red North Dakota, if you open carry, some harpy will call the cops on you, i.e., SWAT you, as a threat. Like they did to this poor guy, who was merely sitting on a park bench minding his own business. https://fargond.gov/news-events/city...6d193393b1265e.

Gun rights groups like to argue for open carry, but it has little to no practical value. In Texas, which banned open carry, certain groups would protest by carrying black powder revolvers (which aren’t firearms under Texas law). And, when they finally got their way and open carry was legal, they really never bothered to do it after the novelty wore off.
Reply With Quote
  #2136  
Old 05-15-2022, 9:12 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
The draft opinion on abortion released last week leads to only one conclusion regardless of the Supreme Court’s answer - the Bruen opinion is going to be a disappointment. There will never be a right to carry a concealed handgun in public.
Perhaps the best consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v Bruen will be the final discrediting of these alternative theories of the Second Amendment that have such a strong following here on these forums. This case does not address open carry. Any thought that the Court is going to rule that open carry is constitutionally protected but concealed carry is not is complete fantasy. Go back and listen to the oral arguments. Not a single Justice followed that line of thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #2137  
Old 05-15-2022, 11:36 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 999
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post

Open carry is worthless. Even in deep red North Dakota, if you open carry, some harpy will call the cops on you, i.e., SWAT you, as a threat. Like they did to this poor guy, who was merely sitting on a park bench minding his own business. https://fargond.gov/news-events/city...6d193393b1265e.

Gun rights groups like to argue for open carry, but it has little to no practical value. In Texas, which banned open carry, certain groups would protest by carrying black powder revolvers (which aren’t firearms under Texas law). And, when they finally got their way and open carry was legal, they really never bothered to do it after the novelty wore off.
I'm going to disagree here. I spend a considerable amount of time in the non-tourist areas of Vegas. Open carry is legal in NV without a permit. I see it all the time in places like Taco Bell, Walmart, Home Depot, the gas station, the grocery store etc. I don't usually because I think it is a bad idea tactically, but I have when I found I left my CCW permit at home. The bottom line is: NOBODY CARES! I think it is a matter of familiarity. Once people are used to seeing it on a regular basis they will freak out less, and more importantly, once police get tired of responding to endless calls for non-crimes, they will learn and hopefully 911 operators will be trained to simply tell the freaked out callers that simply carrying a gun is not a crime and police will not be sent. Yes incidents happen, probably more frequently after a change in the law, but I'm not aware of any constitutional carry states where this remains a large ongoing problem beyond a year after the change of the law.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #2138  
Old 05-16-2022, 6:02 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,191
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

these are the two released today.

Patel v. Garland
Federal Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz

Last edited by abinsinia; 05-16-2022 at 6:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2139  
Old 05-16-2022, 7:23 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Less than 6 weeks to go!



Currently the remaining dates for releasing opinions are:

May 23, 31
June 06, 13, 21, 27
__________________
Elect Ben Therriault for Contra Costa Sheriff!
https://www.ben4sheriff.com/ccw
Elect Kevin Jensen for Santa Clara Sheriff!
https://www.kevinjensen4sheriff.com/
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

https://alexvillanueva.org/
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #2140  
Old 05-16-2022, 7:27 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
Perhaps the best consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v Bruen will be the final discrediting of these alternative theories of the Second Amendment that have such a strong following here on these forums. This case does not address open carry. Any thought that the Court is going to rule that open carry is constitutionally protected but concealed carry is not is complete fantasy. Go back and listen to the oral arguments. Not a single Justice followed that line of thinking.
Because that wasn't the question before the court.

Even then, you had 4 Heller justices from the (3)majority and (1)minority that agreed that concealed carry may be prohibited...

...Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch who are on record as being bound by Heller...

...and Kagan herself pointing out Clement's "different wavelength" argument as being problematic in light of the history and tradition examination under which open carry is regarded as the natural exercise of the right.

They don't have to defend OR argue for open carry for two reasons:

1. They already did in DC v. Heller.

BUT more importantly . . .

2. Long rifles and very large handguns are carried by default openly.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 05-16-2022 at 7:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2141  
Old 05-16-2022, 8:09 AM
lastinline lastinline is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is like being on a giant rollercoaster slowly slinking it’s way up to the big drop; clack, clack, clack, then it seems to slowly stall momentarily before the plunge. But in cases of the 2A, it stalls until the park closes, and the cars are slowly backed down, wherein the riders are told to exit. Hopefully by the very last second that the opinion may be released, we get something better than a giant nothing burger, but nobody, even after eons (and 2,241+ posts of hot air), and all the reading of tea leaves, really can predict Jack Squat. They could even release an opinion that allows “adequate time” for states to “prepare” their implementation. In our case, that likely means more lawsuits to be litigated over several decades, while it gets “sorted out” by the 9th.
I only hope I’m wrong, but in my advancing age, I’ve become cynical.
Reply With Quote
  #2142  
Old 05-16-2022, 8:16 AM
XDJYo XDJYo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 5,123
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Doesn’t matter which way the SCOTUS rules. California will keep doing what it does. Probably claim itself an anti-2A sanctuary state. (As if we didn’t already know that).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & SA Professional Double Diamond Grips
Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model
Springfield Armory XD9 4" Service Model (wifes).
M&P 15 (Mine)
Reply With Quote
  #2143  
Old 05-16-2022, 8:21 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,283
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Because that wasn't the question before the court.

Even then, you had 4 Heller justices from the (3)majority and (1)minority that agreed that concealed carry may be prohibited...

...Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch who are on record as being bound by Heller...

...and Kagan herself pointing out Clement's "different wavelength" argument as being problematic in light of the history and tradition examination under which open carry is regarded as the natural exercise of the right.

They don't have to defend OR argue for open carry for two reasons:

1. They already did in DC v. Heller.

BUT more importantly . . .

2. Long rifles and very large handguns are carried by default openly.

=8-|
The justices are not bound by anything. Kagan said the same ****. Do you think she’s going to go along with the majority opinion? I’m just going to ignore the rest of your comment, but you really can’t grasp the fact that the justices can vote however they please.
Reply With Quote
  #2144  
Old 05-16-2022, 9:32 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,813
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Moreover, three of the five needed to secure the right are not fans of stare decisis, when it leads to an illogical outcome. The other two are open to persuasion. Roberts may go his own way on this, but likely in the minority with the liberals after the recent mass shootings.
Reply With Quote
  #2145  
Old 05-16-2022, 10:30 AM
FreshTapCoke FreshTapCoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 655
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
What should we read into the question as changed by the Supreme Court - “Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment”?
Maybe it's because the remaining places where the Right to Bear arms is infringed would prefer concealed carry over open, or they believe concealed carry would be beneficial over open carry. By rephrasing the question to explicitly address concealed carry, it limits the weasel room available for legislature and courts to infringe on bearing concealed.

i.e. They rephrased it to a question they feel would be most beneficial to securing the Right to Bear arms in the states/courts that have weaseled through Heller's and McDonald's opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #2146  
Old 05-16-2022, 11:20 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshTapCoke View Post
Maybe it's because the remaining places where the Right to Bear arms is infringed would prefer concealed carry over open, or they believe concealed carry would be beneficial over open carry. By rephrasing the question to explicitly address concealed carry, it limits the weasel room available for legislature and courts to infringe on bearing concealed.

i.e. They rephrased it to a question they feel would be most beneficial to securing the Right to Bear arms in the states/courts that have weaseled through Heller's and McDonald's opinions.
As I recall, they rephrased it because appellants sought to broaden the question to be decided. However, the case below was only about the constitutionality of the discretionary issuance system for a CCW. The two primary plaintiffs had sought unsuccessfully for CCWs despite having all the permits needed for ownership and hunting, and with no evidence that they were not of good moral character or disabled from possessing weapons.
Reply With Quote
  #2147  
Old 05-16-2022, 11:22 AM
thethreegs thethreegs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDJYo View Post
Doesn’t matter which way the SCOTUS rules. California will keep doing what it does. Probably claim itself an anti-2A sanctuary state. (As if we didn’t already know that).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This. It's the other elephant in the room many do not want to admit. Someone already phrased it beautifully - this decision only affects a small percentage of American lives directly. We tend to only care about things that affect us directly. A handful of counties in our state, for example. And about 7-8 states total. A host of specific cities. It will be addressed promptly by the powers that be in those specific counties and states. The latest media event, in NY no less, will enhance the optics of the ruling. So the million dollar question - what can we do to pre-emptively prepare for people like Newsom that will assault the ruling (assuming it goes our way?)

Also, my previous post and a few posts of discussion directly related to this case, albeit inconvenient discussion, was censored (deleted.) Naughty naughty, Calguns.
Reply With Quote
  #2148  
Old 05-16-2022, 11:30 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

People who are pleasuring themselves over dicta in Heller do not seem to realize it is there as a bone to Kennedy, has no precedent power (this ignored by courts) and is NOT shared by the current majority.
Reply With Quote
  #2149  
Old 05-16-2022, 12:17 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,813
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDJYo View Post
Doesn’t matter which way the SCOTUS rules. California will keep doing what it does. Probably claim itself an anti-2A sanctuary state. (As if we didn’t already know that).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Risking being too far OT, but an editorial from the St. Louis Dispatch, today, putting their best leftist spin on how only now the court is getting political, and why losing Roe and intimating 2A rights being reinforced, will lead to total disregard for SCOTUS rulings and the judicial branch.

They just keep paving the way to the downfall of this country. Which will of course be picked up and echoed by shill postings and “news” sites, augmented by skewed search results and regurgitated on national fake news. Sickening.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/edi...49fa7371e.html
Reply With Quote
  #2150  
Old 05-16-2022, 12:20 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
The justices are not bound by anything. Kagan said the same ****. Do you think she’s going to go along with the majority opinion? I’m just going to ignore the rest of your comment, but you really can’t grasp the fact that the justices can vote however they please.
Listen to the NYSRPA v. Bruen hearings, especially Kagan's interactions with Clements.

Furthermore, you either have severe dementia of the memory loss type OR you are deliberately selective recall wise in order to frame someone else as ignorant.

You have been in these threads as long as I have and with about the same frequency.

Which one is it?

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #2151  
Old 05-16-2022, 1:15 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,848
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
...
Open carry is worthless. Even in deep red North Dakota, if you open carry, some harpy will call the cops on you, i.e., SWAT you, as a threat. Like they did to this poor guy, who was merely sitting on a park bench minding his own business. https://fargond.gov/news-events/city...6d193393b1265e.
....
It appears the North Dakota is not as red as Idaho. It is not uncommon to see shoppers in WalMart and local grocery stores open carrying, it does not cause any commotion, everyone knows that these handguns are loaded and no one calls the cops. From what I understand, Arizona is the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #2152  
Old 05-16-2022, 1:16 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,191
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
JUSTICE KAGAN: How is it consistent
with the history? I mean, the history seems
very clear to me that it's sort of like the
exact opposite of how we think about it now, in
other words, that there are lots of places that
wanted people to display their arms as a matter
of transparency, and what they prohibited was
the concealed carry.
Kagan is on mrrabbits wavelength.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...0-843_f2q3.pdf

Last edited by abinsinia; 05-16-2022 at 1:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2153  
Old 05-16-2022, 1:48 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,283
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Listen to the NYSRPA v. Bruen hearings, especially Kagan's interactions with Clements.

Furthermore, you either have severe dementia of the memory loss type OR you are deliberately selective recall wise in order to frame someone else as ignorant.

You have been in these threads as long as I have and with about the same frequency.

Which one is it?

The only one misframing comments here is you. As I said in my first statement, I am not arguing concealed vs open, or Kagan's comment surrounding prohibition on conceal carry. Not at all.

Let's say you're right about open vs concealed. Open is the right and you get to gloat forever because you were correct. Do you think Kagan is going to sign onto that opinion because of the comments she made in confirmation hearing and being "bound" by Heller?

Oh, I am directly framing you as ignorant. The fact that you think justices are "bound" by what they said in confirmation hearings just goes to show the framework which your logic is built upon.
Reply With Quote
  #2154  
Old 05-16-2022, 1:52 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 21,353
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Open carry is worthless. Even in deep red North Dakota, if you open carry, some harpy will call the cops on you, i.e., SWAT you, as a threat. Like they did to this poor guy, who was merely sitting on a park bench minding his own business. https://fargond.gov/news-events/city...6d193393b1265e.

Gun rights groups like to argue for open carry, but it has little to no practical value. In Texas, which banned open carry, certain groups would protest by carrying black powder revolvers (which aren’t firearms under Texas law). And, when they finally got their way and open carry was legal, they really never bothered to do it after the novelty wore off.

Open carry is hardly worthless. If it is the only legal option, the novelty will never wear off.

Harpies can call the cops all they want - believe me the novelty of responding to such calls *will* wear off for LE if open carry is a recognized national right. And if a few good citizens get SWAT'ed and die as a result along the way, concealed carry will start looking a lot better as the government coffers get drained by lawsuit after lawsuit.

You sound like a defeatist or an anti-gun shill. Defeatist I can get, and even sympathize with, as gun rights wins are few and far between and it is sometimes perhaps tempting to throw in the towel. Anti-gun shill can kick rocks.
__________________
.


Last edited by SkyHawk; 05-16-2022 at 1:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2155  
Old 05-16-2022, 1:53 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
The only one misframing comments here is you. As I said in my first statement, I am not arguing concealed vs open, or Kagan's comment surrounding prohibition on conceal carry. Not at all.

Let's say you're right about open vs concealed. Open is the right and you get to gloat forever because you were correct. Do you think Kagan is going to sign onto that opinion because of the comments she made in confirmation hearing and being "bound" by Heller?

Oh, I am directly framing you as ignorant. The fact that you think justices are "bound" by what they said in confirmation hearings just goes to show the framework which your logic is built upon.
Quote:

"but you really can’t grasp the fact that the justices can vote however they please."


You said it. You did so either on the basis of very poor memory recall OR deliberately.

Either way, you own it.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #2156  
Old 05-16-2022, 2:00 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,283
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Quote:

"but you really can’t grasp the fact that the justices can vote however they please."


You said it. You did so either on the basis of very poor memory recall OR deliberately.

Either way, you own it.

=8-|
Since we are going to go ahead and quote each other, and I truly have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Because that wasn't the question before the court.

Even then, you had 4 Heller justices from the (3)majority and (1)minority that agreed that concealed carry may be prohibited...

...Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch who are on record as being bound by Heller...

...and Kagan herself pointing out Clement's "different wavelength" argument as being problematic in light of the history and tradition examination under which open carry is regarded as the natural exercise of the right.

They don't have to defend OR argue for open carry for two reasons:

1. They already did in DC v. Heller.

BUT more importantly . . .

2. Long rifles and very large handguns are carried by default openly.

=8-|
edit: I may have misinterpreted your comments when you referring to oral argument not confirmation hearings, although that due to the fact that we have had that conversation before, and your inability to accept that justices can vote however they please and change precedent however they please despite what they say during oral argument OR confirmation hearings.

Quote:
...Is there any doubt after the Court’s decision in Heller and
McDonald that the Second Amendment to the Constitution secures
a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for
self-defense in their home?
Ms. KAGAN. There is no doubt, Senator Leahy. That is binding
precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any
case. So that is settled law

So let's say the justices rule open carry is the right. Do you think Kagan will vote with the majority based on her comments?

Last edited by wireless; 05-16-2022 at 2:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2157  
Old 05-16-2022, 2:11 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,191
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
JUSTICE THOMAS: Mr. Clement, sorry to
interrupt you. The -- if we analyze this and
use history, tradition, the text of the Second
Amendment, we're going to have to do it by
analogy.
So can you give me a regulation in
history that is a base -- that would form a
basis for legitimate regulation today?
If we're
going to do it by analogy, what would we
analogize it to? What would that look like?
I don't totally understand what he's getting at here, but this appears to be the person writing the opinion. These comments are relevant.

It sounds like what he's getting at has to do with what regulations on concealed carry would be allowed. From Heller we know concealed carry is open for regulation (maybe a complete ban).

If they drill down on concealed carry and force issuance of permits, they will likely allow additional regulation beyond what is allow on open carry. I suspect Thomas has a specific thing in mind which was regulated similar to how he see's concealed carry being regulated.
Reply With Quote
  #2158  
Old 05-16-2022, 2:19 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
Open carry is hardly worthless. If it is the only option, the novelty will never wear off.

Harpies can call the cops all they want - believe me the novelty of responding to such calls *will* wear off for LE if open carry is a recognized national right. And if a few good citizens get SWAT'ed and die as a result, concealed carry will start looking a lot better as the government coffers get drained by lawsuit after lawsuit.

You sound like a defeatist or an anti-gun shill. Defeatist I can get, and even sympathize with. Anti-gun shill can kick rocks.
One of the saddest things to witness here on Calgun's is how some people are so anxious or so desparate to have "something" be "their way" or "their preference" or a realization of "their expert opinion" that they end up taking positions or pushing agendas that are actually DESTRUCTIVE of the very right they claim to promote or uphold.

A person with everyday common sense understands that we as individuals are much better at analyzing, determining, planning and exercising our self-defense needs than a "bigwig" bureacrat or legislator or judge in a room 105 miles away.

That same person understands that having multiple choices available when planning and exericing our self-defense needs is an essential part.

Circumstance is the mother of choice.

Yet we have person after person here on Calgun's who are literally advocates of the following:

Thing A is contingent upon thing B.
Thing A may be banned in favor of thing B.
Thing A is worthless, only thing B is worthwhile.
Thing A is a poor exericize, thing B is superior.
Thing A just causes trouble, thing B is thing B.

And all the while are completely clueless that what they are advocating is not only desctructive of the 2nd Amendment right, but other other rights as well.

Yes, other rights as well.


A healthy polity is going to be one that is Open Carry AND Shall Issue Concealed Carry.

What YOU do is what YOU decide - so long as it's legal.


A very healthy polity is that rare polity that isn't going to give a damn either way you carry.

What YOU do is what YOU decide - period.


I'll say again as I have in the past. People who disparage open carry even under the best of the two circumstances noted above . . .

. . . are revealing themselves for the kinds of people that they are.

Tyrrants, statists . . . and elitists who think "only the right people" should get to exericse their individual rights.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 05-16-2022 at 2:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2159  
Old 05-16-2022, 2:37 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 9,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch who are on record as being bound by Heller...
They also said that Roe was settled law. And it was, ..... until it wasn't.

SCOTUS has reversed its own rulings somewhere around 300 times IIRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%20own%20cases.
Reply With Quote
  #2160  
Old 05-16-2022, 3:08 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,867
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
They also said that Roe was settled law. And it was, ..... until it wasn't.

SCOTUS has reversed its own rulings somewhere around 300 times IIRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%20own%20cases.
And being master of the obvious and disallowing others the same makes you different from "wireless" exactly how?

Try not to confuse academic arguments based upon records and what actually happens.

...or to better put it:

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns..."


Shall I write a software script counter for Calguns that keeps a running tally of how many times MrRabbit has said something like:

"We're at the mercy of their whims..."

1. Grep "mercy" and "whim" and "mrrabbit" from litigation sub-forums posts.
2. $attheirmercy++;


Hell, maybe it is a good thing that SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. But that's a whole other debate and topic.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical