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
  #641  
Old 06-07-2021, 12:11 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I think they will hold Miller v. Bonta until this one is resolved.
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 06-07-2021, 4:08 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
SCOTUS set the standard with "history and tradition" in DC v. Heller in 2008, and doubled down on it in Caetano v. Massachusetts in 2016.

=8-)
You forgot the most important part: "TEXT, history, and tradition". In that order of importance. But, we know, since text does not support your misinterpretations, you omit it.
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 06-08-2021, 12:47 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You forgot the most important part: "TEXT, history, and tradition". In that order of importance. But, we know, since text does not support your misinterpretations, you omit it.
I mean yeah, if you let simple things like facts get in the way of the conclusion you really want what's the point to living? Saying things you don't want to be true are true?

Keep on keeping on Rabbit.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 06-08-2021, 9:56 AM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
I still pray that they take Young in combination with NYSRPA.. Find open carry IS the Right however a state shall issue CCW's with little financial or bureaucratic road blocks... one can pray and dream..
If SCOTUS takes Young in combo with NYSRPA it will be about "Shall" vs. "May" issue licensing schemes; which is, essentially, what SCOTUS is deciding in NYSRPA. NYSRPA is about CCW license and not open-carry. Young points, heavily, to this in it's Cert. Young's questions will be narrowed to CCW.

Russell v New Jersey and Libertarian v Cuomo are also about "May Issue" licensing schemes.

But I think Young, Russell, Libertarian will all be put on hold until NYSRPA is decided.

When SCOTUS holds that a State "Shall" issue CCW licenses, then it will also hold that the 2nd means "bear arms" extends to outside the home, but ONLY with a CCW license.

Then, Young, Russell, and Libertarian will be GVR'd.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 06-08-2021, 10:02 AM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
...No one even gives short shrift to the 10th and the fact that those rights not expressly given to the Government are held by the States and the people respectively. WE hold the Rights and the ones we ceded are supposed to be expressly enumerated. NOT the other way around where we get the last consideration after everyone else gets to bite our apples first...
The 10th is about "powers" and whatever Powers the People of a State want to grant to their State. It has nothing to do with Rights.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 06-08-2021, 10:33 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
The 10th is about "powers" and whatever Powers the People of a State want to grant to their State. It has nothing to do with Rights.
I'd only modify this to say it is about powers and whatever powers the state may have as a default vs. the people having as a default. The people of a state may not grant powers immediately, "prohibited unless allowed" and in other states it may be the powers are the states by default unless they say otherwise "allowed unless prohibited". Technically the people "granted" those rights, but the automaticity does make a big difference.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 06-10-2021, 4:10 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
If SCOTUS takes Young in combo with NYSRPA it will be about "Shall" vs. "May" issue licensing schemes; which is, essentially, what SCOTUS is deciding in NYSRPA. NYSRPA is about CCW license and not open-carry. Young points, heavily, to this in it's Cert. Young's questions will be narrowed to CCW.

Russell v New Jersey and Libertarian v Cuomo are also about "May Issue" licensing schemes.

But I think Young, Russell, Libertarian will all be put on hold until NYSRPA is decided.

When SCOTUS holds that a State "Shall" issue CCW licenses, then it will also hold that the 2nd means "bear arms" extends to outside the home, but ONLY with a CCW license.

Then, Young, Russell, and Libertarian will be GVR'd.
In my opinion, NYSRPA is a “right to carry” case and not a manner of carry case (open/concealed). At a minimum, the court will opine that there is a right to carry outside the home and a general desire for self defense is a valid reason to carry. NY, therefore, erred when it didn’t issue the CCW license. Hopefully they go further and dismantle intermediate scrutiny.
However, this is as far as the court will go. They will not get into open vs concealed, they aren’t going to mandate reciprocity and they will not tear down permitting schemes (ie mandate constitutional carry).

Young will be held and then GVR’d after NYSRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 06-10-2021, 5:51 AM
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
In my opinion, NYSRPA is a “right to carry” case and not a manner of carry case (open/concealed). At a minimum, the court will opine that there is a right to carry outside the home and a general desire for self defense is a valid reason to carry. NY, therefore, erred when it didn’t issue the CCW license. Hopefully they go further and dismantle intermediate scrutiny.
However, this is as far as the court will go. They will not get into open vs concealed, they aren’t going to mandate reciprocity and they will not tear down permitting schemes (ie mandate constitutional carry).

Young will be held and then GVR’d after NYSRPA.

Actually, if the Supremes decide that bearing arms in public is what "bear" in the 2A means, then we get a backdoor to reciprocity since a State that denies public carry from an out of State visitor directly violates their 2A right to bear arms in public.

Places that demand "equivalency" are either going to have to drop that BS or create readily available "tourist" permits for visitors. Which will quickly turn into a fee producing scheme amounting to a "carry tax."

The difficult part is that if "public carry" is a Right that shall not be infringed, then having a 50 State patchwork puzzle of laws, rules, and restrictions isn't going to work. If the SCOTUS doesn't address this in either Young or Corlett, then there will be a test case that completely ruins someone's life before it does get decided.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 06-10-2021, 6:31 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 658
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
In my opinion, NYSRPA is a “right to carry” case and not a manner of carry case (open/concealed). At a minimum, the court will opine that there is a right to carry outside the home and a general desire for self defense is a valid reason to carry. NY, therefore, erred when it didn’t issue the CCW license. Hopefully they go further and dismantle intermediate scrutiny.
However, this is as far as the court will go. They will not get into open vs concealed, they aren’t going to mandate reciprocity and they will not tear down permitting schemes (ie mandate constitutional carry).

Young will be held and then GVR’d after NYSRPA.
I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but I've said it before. The way the question was redefined by SCOTUS, this case can be settled without ever addressing carry or possibly even the 2A. It has devolved to a state licensing issue and whether or not the state can license an activity. You may not like that, but reread the revised question and then ask yourself - "How can the court possibly screw this up more?" and you will see what could happen. So don't be surprised when this case doesn't provide the relief expected.

Not pessimistic, just observing what has happened in the past with the Court and projecting onto this case.

I hope I am wrong and fear I am right.
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 06-10-2021, 9:59 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but I've said it before. The way the question was redefined by SCOTUS, this case can be settled without ever addressing carry or possibly even the 2A. It has devolved to a state licensing issue and whether or not the state can license an activity. You may not like that, but reread the revised question and then ask yourself - "How can the court possibly screw this up more?" and you will see what could happen. So don't be surprised when this case doesn't provide the relief expected.

Not pessimistic, just observing what has happened in the past with the Court and projecting onto this case.

I hope I am wrong and fear I am right.
If they really wanted to avoid the 2A question they would have avoided this particular case entirely. There are many licensing cases that come up before them across the years. Just last year we had Rogers v Grewal that asked essentially the same question as Corlett. What changed? RGB died, ACB took her place. Roberts was nullified as the court's center. It's a silly proposition to think they want to avoid the second amendment now that this case has been granted cert. They passed on a huge number of felon prohibitor cases early in this term. That changed when they had a straight 2A question regarding the general public.
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 06-10-2021, 10:03 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
In my opinion, NYSRPA is a “right to carry” case and not a manner of carry case (open/concealed). At a minimum, the court will opine that there is a right to carry outside the home and a general desire for self defense is a valid reason to carry. NY, therefore, erred when it didn’t issue the CCW license. Hopefully they go further and dismantle intermediate scrutiny.
However, this is as far as the court will go. They will not get into open vs concealed, they aren’t going to mandate reciprocity and they will not tear down permitting schemes (ie mandate constitutional carry).

Young will be held and then GVR’d after NYSRPA.
This is the correct way to look at the new question. Adding to it, the new question also does not block the Supreme Court from defining the mode of review for 2A cases. They can quite easily opine on the method of review from the 2nd circuit and explain the way that RKBA must be examined in court.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 06-10-2021, 11:52 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Actually, if the Supremes decide that bearing arms in public is what "bear" in the 2A means, then we get a backdoor to reciprocity since a State that denies public carry from an out of State visitor directly violates their 2A right to bear arms in public.

Places that demand "equivalency" are either going to have to drop that BS or create readily available "tourist" permits for visitors. Which will quickly turn into a fee producing scheme amounting to a "carry tax."

The difficult part is that if "public carry" is a Right that shall not be infringed, then having a 50 State patchwork puzzle of laws, rules, and restrictions isn't going to work. If the SCOTUS doesn't address this in either Young or Corlett, then there will be a test case that completely ruins someone's life before it does get decided.
Yup, I agree. They won't address national reciprocity directly, but it will be the outcome from them ruling that the right to carry for an average person exists outside the home. There isn't any right in the constitution that can be denied by states to non-residents. I'm sure we will have to sue to get the right to carry in other states like CA, but at that point it becomes a 14A issue. The 2A aspect has already been addressed. McDonald incorporated Heller and the 2A into the states. I think circuit liberal courts will strike own bans on carry by non-residents in this case. It will be the conservative judge's version of abortion, where they often do not have any wiggle room and strike down abortion laws.

I do not think open vs concealed will be addressed to any meaningful degree. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS is suddenly going to make open carry the mandate in large cities is high or living in fantasy land. SCOTUS greenlights trends or protects minorities of 30%-40%. They aren't going to tell half the country that they must allow open carry in areas where 95% of the population is against it. It's too contradictory to the status quo. Anyone arguing legal principles over this fact is missing the point entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 06-10-2021, 2:21 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Yup, I agree. They won't address national reciprocity directly, but it will be the outcome from them ruling that the right to carry for an average person exists outside the home. There isn't any right in the constitution that can be denied by states to non-residents. I'm sure we will have to sue to get the right to carry in other states like CA, but at that point it becomes a 14A issue. The 2A aspect has already been addressed. McDonald incorporated Heller and the 2A into the states. I think circuit liberal courts will strike own bans on carry by non-residents in this case. It will be the conservative judge's version of abortion, where they often do not have any wiggle room and strike down abortion laws.
Unfortunately, which respect to reciprocity, I still think we will see a patchwork approach. Red states will have generous reciprocity laws, blue states will require a permit issued by their state or may allow reciprocity with similarly strict regimes.

The blue states will attempt to satisfy the equal protection clause by allowing non-residents to apply for a permit in their state under their rules (which will be the same rules for residents and non-residents to avoid claims of discrimination).

I think there are also a few (I think) constitutional carry states where only residents can carry without a permit. They will need to treat non-residents equally as well.
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:10 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Unfortunately, which respect to reciprocity, I still think we will see a patchwork approach. Red states will have generous reciprocity laws, blue states will require a permit issued by their state or may allow reciprocity with similarly strict regimes.

The blue states will attempt to satisfy the equal protection clause by allowing non-residents to apply for a permit in their state under their rules (which will be the same rules for residents and non-residents to avoid claims of discrimination).

I think there are also a few (I think) constitutional carry states where only residents can carry without a permit. They will need to treat non-residents equally as well.
I believe there are only 2 right now (WY & ND). They may be able to skirt this by basically accepting any state's permit, and WY has unlicensed open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:12 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Yup, I agree. They won't address national reciprocity directly, but it will be the outcome from them ruling that the right to carry for an average person exists outside the home. There isn't any right in the constitution that can be denied by states to non-residents. I'm sure we will have to sue to get the right to carry in other states like CA, but at that point it becomes a 14A issue. The 2A aspect has already been addressed. McDonald incorporated Heller and the 2A into the states. I think circuit liberal courts will strike own bans on carry by non-residents in this case. It will be the conservative judge's version of abortion, where they often do not have any wiggle room and strike down abortion laws.

I do not think open vs concealed will be addressed to any meaningful degree. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS is suddenly going to make open carry the mandate in large cities is high or living in fantasy land. SCOTUS greenlights trends or protects minorities of 30%-40%. They aren't going to tell half the country that they must allow open carry in areas where 95% of the population is against it. It's too contradictory to the status quo. Anyone arguing legal principles over this fact is missing the point entirely.
If they do it's because SCOTUS wants it to, because NY nor NYSRPA is making it an issue. They both agree in this case concealed carry is a valid mode of carry, not totally divorced of the right like CA9 says
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:14 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
If they really wanted to avoid the 2A question they would have avoided this particular case entirely. There are many licensing cases that come up before them across the years. Just last year we had Rogers v Grewal that asked essentially the same question as Corlett. What changed? RGB died, ACB took her place. Roberts was nullified as the court's center. It's a silly proposition to think they want to avoid the second amendment now that this case has been granted cert. They passed on a huge number of felon prohibitor cases early in this term. That changed when they had a straight 2A question regarding the general public.
Agreed. Why would they even bother?
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 06-10-2021, 3:48 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Unfortunately, which respect to reciprocity, I still think we will see a patchwork approach. Red states will have generous reciprocity laws, blue states will require a permit issued by their state or may allow reciprocity with similarly strict regimes.

The blue states will attempt to satisfy the equal protection clause by allowing non-residents to apply for a permit in their state under their rules (which will be the same rules for residents and non-residents to avoid claims of discrimination).

I think there are also a few (I think) constitutional carry states where only residents can carry without a permit. They will need to treat non-residents equally as well.
I agree it will be a patchwork of laws allowing where you can carry.

I do not think forcing people to get a carry permit in a state they are visiting will pass constitutional muster after this case. theoretically, someone might have to apply for 50 permits in that case, and if the permits were not instantly approved, their right to carry in another state would be denied while they sit on a waiting list. I just really think some form of national reciprocity will be inevitable if SCOTUS rules the average person must be issued a permit to carry outside of the home.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 06-10-2021, 5:25 PM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
In my opinion, NYSRPA is a “right to carry” case and not a manner of carry case (open/concealed). At a minimum, the court will opine that there is a right to carry outside the home and a general desire for self defense is a valid reason to carry. NY, therefore, erred when it didn’t issue the CCW license. Hopefully they go further and dismantle intermediate scrutiny.
However, this is as far as the court will go. They will not get into open vs concealed, they aren’t going to mandate reciprocity and they will not tear down permitting schemes (ie mandate constitutional carry).

Young will be held and then GVR’d after NYSRPA.
It is a "Manner of Carry" case. I've actually re-read the question it's going to answer. I've read it a couple times before, but for some reason I only focused on two words: "Application" and "Licenses". Yes, I'm dense.

Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The case pertains to two subjects. Applications for CCW licenses and Self-defense. However, by default, it's also about carrying outside the home, concealed. Otherwise, why have a CCW license?

Hopefully SCOTUS will hold that licenses "Shall" be issued, with "reasonable" hoops (background check, training) to jump through.

I do think they will go further and insist upon strict scrutiny.

They won't touch open carry, which is why Young didn't actually ask for that. Here are Young's questions...

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the holdings of the First, Seventh and D.C. Circuits, that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home at all.

2. Whether the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun carry license for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 06-10-2021, 5:29 PM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but I've said it before. The way the question was redefined by SCOTUS, this case can be settled without ever addressing carry or possibly even the 2A. It has devolved to a state licensing issue and whether or not the state can license an activity. You may not like that, but reread the revised question and then ask yourself - "How can the court possibly screw this up more?" and you will see what could happen. So don't be surprised when this case doesn't provide the relief expected.

Not pessimistic, just observing what has happened in the past with the Court and projecting onto this case.

I hope I am wrong and fear I am right.
Reread the question again...

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

It is a carry case (and self-defense) that violated the 2nd.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 06-10-2021, 5:33 PM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
...I do not think open vs concealed will be addressed to any meaningful degree...
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #661  
Old 06-10-2021, 9:17 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Yes, thank you for that. I'm well aware of the question as they reframed it on April 26th and included the word concealed. My point is, they are not going to go into a long analysis about open carry vs concealed. I never said they wouldn't talk about concealed as right. If you don't understand what I am saying, they you haven't been reading these threads for the past 11.5 years that devolved into open vs concealed being the protected right. I fully expect an opinion that will be similar to Peruta before en banc overturned it. But yes, you are correct, they will have to use the words concealed carry many times and refer to NY's open carry laws in order to come to the conclusion that NY's denial of a concealed carry permit is an infringement on the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 06-11-2021, 5:25 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Yes, thank you for that. I'm well aware of the question as they reframed it on April 26th and included the word concealed. My point is, they are not going to go into a long analysis about open carry vs concealed. I never said they wouldn't talk about concealed as right. If you don't understand what I am saying, they you haven't been reading these threads for the past 11.5 years that devolved into open vs concealed being the protected right. I fully expect an opinion that will be similar to Peruta before en banc overturned it. But yes, you are correct, they will have to use the words concealed carry many times and refer to NY's open carry laws in order to come to the conclusion that NY's denial of a concealed carry permit is an infringement on the 2A.
Here's a new question:

Did supreme court change it to Concealed Carry only as a question just to prove MrRabbit wrong because they found him so annoying? And were they waiting for MulayElRaisuli to retire out of respect so it wasn't seen as a rebuke to him?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 06-11-2021, 6:52 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 658
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
Reread the question again...

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

It is a carry case (and self-defense) that violated the 2nd.
I've read the question. As I've said I hope I'm wrong. I think people are projecting into this what they want as they have done in the past and that is why they are disappointed when the court rules in a way they don't' want.

I can devils advocate this here and say, why didn't the court rephase the question this way? "Is there a right to carry an arm outside the home for self defense?" This makes more sense if this is truly a carry case - why bring up licensing at all? Are rights subject to licensing - is so, they are not rights but govt privileges.
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 06-11-2021, 7:05 AM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
I can devils advocate this here and say, why didn't the court rephase the question this way? "Is there a right to carry an arm outside the home for self defense?" This makes more sense if this is truly a carry case - why bring up licensing at all? Are rights subject to licensing - is so, they are not rights but govt privileges.
Answering the question: "Is there a right to carry an arm outside the home for self defense?" doesn't necessarily provide the plaintiffs any relief and create a requirement that New York issue them a concealed carry license for self defense.

With that question, the court could conclude there is a right to carry arms outside the home for self defense. But, could then say that right is limited to those who "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community."

I like the way the Supreme Court worded the question.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 06-11-2021, 7:42 AM
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
Answering the question: "Is there a right to carry an arm outside the home for self defense?" doesn't necessarily provide the plaintiffs any relief and create a requirement that New York issue them a concealed carry license for self defense.

With that question, the court could conclude there is a right to carry arms outside the home for self defense. But, could then say that right is limited to those who "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community."

I like the way the Supreme Court worded the question.
They can still conclude that bearing arms outside the home can be limited even under the reworded question if that's all they want to say. That's not worth granting Cert for since that's the lower court's decision so it's unlikely they're going to go that route no matter how the question is worded.

We're reading tea leaves here, but I believe that the reworded question frames the issues of:

Does bear include outside the home? (necessary first step to any question on carrying arms with or without a permit.)

If not, no controversy and the lower court's decision is correct. (And no reason to grant Cert either.)

If so, then is it a violation of the 2A to prohibit bearing arms outside the home unless "special reasons" and "permission"?

A sub question results if yes to #2 which is: If so, then is it a violation if the State limits when, where, how, etc arms can be carried in public? (This results in time/place/manner restrictions either being ok or not but I'm thinking that "regulation of carry" will be acceptable so long as it's not based on "special reasons" and/or "permission." This results in no carry in cars, on public transport, inside government buildings, yada yada yada, which would satisfy Blue States somewhat.)


In addition to the above, but not stated in the question, the Supremes can also add:

Does the lower court decision meet the required standard of review under Heller given the ongoing refusal of the lower courts not following the instructions in Heller?

This extra bit could be used to reaffirm Heller but could be "punched up" to make sure the lower courts finally get the message that "interest balancing" isn't the test when examining infringements to the 2A.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 06-12-2021, 8:46 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
You forgot the most important part: "TEXT, history, and tradition". In that order of importance. But, we know, since text does not support your misinterpretations, you omit it.
The went to the TEXT in DC v. Heller and concluded that 600+ years of history and tradition made it crystal clear:

Concealed carry was not the default exercise, is considered criminally suspicious behavior, alone was grounds for execution, prosecution and imprisonment, and was regulated as a privilege.

=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
  #667  
Old 06-12-2021, 8:50 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
The 10th is about "powers" and whatever Powers the People of a State want to grant to their State. It has nothing to do with Rights.
A clear reminder what a "polity" is. Also a reminder of why Scalia discussed this specifically in DC v. Heller.

=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
  #668  
Old 06-12-2021, 8:55 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Actually, if the Supremes decide that bearing arms in public is what "bear" in the 2A means, then we get a backdoor to reciprocity since a State that denies public carry from an out of State visitor directly violates their 2A right to bear arms in public.

Places that demand "equivalency" are either going to have to drop that BS or create readily available "tourist" permits for visitors. Which will quickly turn into a fee producing scheme amounting to a "carry tax."

The difficult part is that if "public carry" is a Right that shall not be infringed, then having a 50 State patchwork puzzle of laws, rules, and restrictions isn't going to work. If the SCOTUS doesn't address this in either Young or Corlett, then there will be a test case that completely ruins someone's life before it does get decided.
You can only believe this IF you ignore the cites and references in DC v. Heller . . . to 18th century cases in which the appellants (except one) were arrested / fined while "bearing" out and about in public.

Those who were bearing openly had their convictions overturned or remanded. Those who were bearing concealed had their convictions upheld.

IN PUBLIC

Not in private, again except for one that was convicted for carry concealed while on their own private property.

=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
  #669  
Old 06-12-2021, 9:01 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
Reread the question again...

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

It is a carry case (and self-defense) that violated the 2nd.
It's a CONCEALED CARRY CASE. That's exactly how the State views it - they consider ALL handguns concealable and license accordingly.

That's exactly how SCOTUS identified it when taking it up on cert.

They're taking up the State's (respondent) position for examination - NOT the plaintiffs.

The only hole open for the plaintiff is "self-defense" and "2nd Amendment".

In 1876 and 2008, SCOTUS noted that States may regulate concealed carry even to the point of a ban.

What will they decide in this one?

Who knows...

=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
  #670  
Old 06-12-2021, 9:07 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Here's a new question:

Did supreme court change it to Concealed Carry only as a question just to prove MrRabbit wrong because they found him so annoying? And were they waiting for MulayElRaisuli to retire out of respect so it wasn't seen as a rebuke to him?
Here's a new question:

Is the supreme court going to change its mind after declaring in Robertson v. Baldwin 1876 that restrictions on concealed carry are valid, AND after declaring UNAMINMOUSLY 9-0 in DC v. Heller 2008 that States regulate concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon may be upheld?

And as an aside, isn't making a thread "personal" a violation of Calgun's rules?

This thread is not supposed to be about myself or Mulay.



=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; 06-12-2021 at 9:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 06-12-2021, 9:57 AM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Ok, I beez ignant. Why would a federal law(2a)be interpreted by the State? What was SCOTUS reasoning for this?
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 06-12-2021, 10:05 AM
Kickstand Kickstand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: NorCal
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’m expecting this case to rule that a State denying self-defense as a valid “good cause” requirement on their CCW application to be unconstitutional. Period. Everything else remains the same- a State may still require someone get a permit to carry, they may still place limits on the time and place and manner someone with a license may carry, they may make their own training requirements and grant/deny reciprocity based on that (or any other universally applied rules they cook up for residents of the state, as long as it’s applied uniformly,) and they may deny a permit based on past legal convictions or other “good moral character” limitations.

All these questions about non-resident permits and ability for out of state visitors will be left for another case.

It will change absolutely nothing for conservative States, and will result in liberal states creating a spate of new creative restrictions on their CCW app to back door deny as many people as they can think they can get away with, when they can no longer refuse based solely on “self defense” being insufficient reason.
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 06-12-2021, 11:51 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 164
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Maybe some strict scrutiny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickstand View Post
I’m expecting this case to rule that a State denying self-defense as a valid “good cause” requirement on their CCW application to be unconstitutional. Period. Everything else remains the same- a State may still require someone get a permit to carry, they may still place limits on the time and place and manner someone with a license may carry, they may make their own training requirements and grant/deny reciprocity based on that (or any other universally applied rules they cook up for residents of the state, as long as it’s applied uniformly,) and they may deny a permit based on past legal convictions or other “good moral character” limitations.

All these questions about non-resident permits and ability for out of state visitors will be left for another case.

It will change absolutely nothing for conservative States, and will result in liberal states creating a spate of new creative restrictions on their CCW app to back door deny as many people as they can think they can get away with, when they can no longer refuse based solely on “self defense” being insufficient reason.
Most of the comments don't speak to the way the Court tries to preserve Federalism, allowing people to generally live with the consequences of the government they elect. I fully expect the ruling to allow different licensing schemes in different states because of Federalism.

We saw in Caetano that the Court was adamant that the State could not deny people the means of self-defense. That takes on even more significance in the era of hate crimes, rioters destroying people's livelihood, and defunding the police. I don't see the Court accepting, "Well, the people of your state voted to be helpless in the face of violent attack." Caetano would not have been unanimous if they believed that. Like Caetano, I expect that the Court will include a discussion that people need an effective way to defend themselves when it is clear that the State won't defend them from violence. As a sign of the times, I expect that to include a robust discussion of how victims of hate crimes need to be able to defend themselves when police won't.

At the same time, I don't expect restrictions to be removed. Just this week the Court ruled on some technicalities of felons in possession of firearms being additional crimes. I certainly don't see an appetite for removing those kinds of restrictions. I would certainly expect that the prohibitions on felons obtaining concealed carry permits would remain. There are also differences from state-to-state about things like past substance use. Location questions such as on school property and differences in states for private property owners posting "no firearms" signs likely won't be affected.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/s...ssion-penalty/

My prediction is that shifting from "may issue" to "shall issue" is in reach. The whole concept of "may issue" rests on the theory that the general public does not require armed self defense. Events over the last year suggest otherwise. I don't think that the Court is keen on telling Asian women they are the mercy of their attackers if the police are defunded. Like Caetano, I expect the state to face harsh criticism for not stepping up to keep people safe. And if the elected officials won't keep the general public safe, then the general public has the Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves when out and about.

Maybe it won't result in huge numbers of people going through the process. If a "shall issue" county of 2 million has only 12,000 permit holders, I'm not sure that will change dramatically. But maybe places like Rochester, NY that have seen people attacked at dinner will see a change. Again, this will be proof-of-concept as only those with means and the organizational skills to navigate the process will complete it.

Even in states with Constitutional Carry, I'm not sure how much it would change behavior. Spending a few days in Wyoming I didn't see anyone armed. The signage is different (the Firearms museum in Cody asking that Exposed firearms be checked with security for example.) Everyone was really polite though, so I spent my visit remembering that an armed society is a polite society.

It wouldn't surprise me to see "Strict Scrutiny" applied as well.

I would then expect the unequivocal decision in Young to be vacated and remanded for further proceedings using "Strict Scrutiny" consistent with the Corlett decision. And maybe all pending decisions remanded back for "Strict Scrutiny." That is one way for them to manage their work load.

I honestly don't see any down side to them applying "Strict Scrutiny." That's such an inside baseball term. It would merely force all the courts to be more thoughtful.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 06-12-2021, 2:42 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS may write an opinion on this and take Young, deciding once and for all OC is the right. A state shall issue permits for CC if the state wanted to allow for less restrict limits; allowing for places normally prohibited such as bars, schools government property.. that would be ideal. It would address those who want to carry a long gun say in the car or for what ever legal reason..
__________________
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
  #675  
Old 06-12-2021, 3:50 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Here's a new question:

Is the supreme court going to change its mind after declaring in Robertson v. Baldwin 1876 that restrictions on concealed carry are valid, AND after declaring UNAMINMOUSLY 9-0 in DC v. Heller 2008 that States regulate concealed carry and that prohibitions thereon may be upheld?

And as an aside, isn't making a thread "personal" a violation of Calgun's rules?

This thread is not supposed to be about myself or Mulay.



=8-|

I could see how the whole notion that the 2nd Amendment only protects open carry (to the exclusion of concealed carry) would be a valid opinion if one were to stop at Heller. It is undeniable that the Supreme Court did say in Heller "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... For example, 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."

However, Heller is not the end of the story. There is history found subsequent to Heller to support that the Supreme Court would say a state must grant a license for concealed carry for self defense without a showing of special need (especially when open carry is completely prohibited).

If open carry were the only right protected, would Justice Thomas have issued such a strong dissent to the denial of certiorari in Peruta, to which Justice Gorsuch joined?

If open carry were the only right protected, would Justice Alito have issued such a detailed concurrence in Caetano, where he specifically describes Ms. Caetano's carrying of a weapon concealed, when he could have just joined the per curium opinion?

If open carry were the only right protected, would Justice Kavanaugh have joined Justice Thomas in the dissent to the denial of certiorari in Rogers v. Grewal?

Anyone saying that Heller only endorsed "open carry" instead of a broader right to self defense is not taking into account what many justices have said since then.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 06-12-2021, 4:06 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,873
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The went to the TEXT in DC v. Heller and concluded that 600+ years of history and tradition made it crystal clear:

Concealed carry was not the default exercise, is considered criminally suspicious behavior, alone was grounds for execution, prosecution and imprisonment, and was regulated as a privilege.

=8-|
Concealed carry was not the default exercise. But there is a difference between something being the default exercise and being the only exercise. You've been arguing that the latter is the case, but here you admit the former is the case.

Furthermore, concealed carry was considered criminally suspicious behavior, but no longer is. As such, the justification for treating concealed carry as not being a part of the right is no longer present. Even so, if the founding generation really did regard concealed carry as not being part of the right, then it can't be regarded as being within the scope of the right today if we take the Court at its word with respect to the scope that Constitutionally-protected rights are enshrined with.

A huge question that bears on this is: does the scope include the reasoning for that scope, or not? If it does, then concealed carry is part of the right today, precisely because the justification for it being excluded from the right is no longer present. If it doesn't, then it may be that concealed carry isn't part of the right today.

That said, it's clear there was disagreement within the founding generation on the question of whether or not concealed carry was part of the right. Bliss v Commonwealth would not have been decided the way it was otherwise.


The text is the 2nd Amendment itself. The only valid reason for going to history and tradition is to resolve ambiguity of terms in the text. Here, we see good reason to do so (to resolve the question of what "the right to keep and bear arms" encompasses).
__________________
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; 06-12-2021 at 4:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 06-12-2021, 5:04 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Concealed carry was not the default exercise. But there is a difference between something being the default exercise and being the only exercise. You've been arguing that the latter is the case, but here you admit the former is the case.

Furthermore, concealed carry was considered criminally suspicious behavior, but no longer is. As such, the justification for treating concealed carry as not being a part of the right is no longer present. Even so, if the founding generation really did regard concealed carry as not being part of the right, then it can't be regarded as being within the scope of the right today if we take the Court at its word with respect to the scope that Constitutionally-protected rights are enshrined with.

A huge question that bears on this is: does the scope include the reasoning for that scope, or not? If it does, then concealed carry is part of the right today, precisely because the justification for it being excluded from the right is no longer present. If it doesn't, then it may be that concealed carry isn't part of the right today.

That said, it's clear there was disagreement within the founding generation on the question of whether or not concealed carry was part of the right. Bliss v Commonwealth would not have been decided the way it was otherwise.


The text is the 2nd Amendment itself. The only valid reason for going to history and tradition is to resolve ambiguity of terms in the text. Here, we see good reason to do so (to resolve the question of what "the right to keep and bear arms" encompasses).
Scalia made it crystal clear that despite modern developments, SCOTUS was not going to reinterpret the right.

And they doubled down on that in Caetano v. Massachusetts.

Is SCOTUS going to allow popular opinion to reinterpret the right?

Rights are supposed to be rights, period. Not something dependent upon sticking a wet finger in the wind.

And again, for the umpteenth time - if you are going to toss in Bliss, don't obfuscate or mislead. Provide the entirety of the history of Bliss including the corrections made by the "polity" afterwards.

=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
  #678  
Old 06-12-2021, 5:21 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Scalia made it crystal clear that despite modern developments, SCOTUS was not going to reinterpret the right.

Scalia's dead and the case he wrote hasn't been functioning or working properly anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
And they doubled down on that in Caetano v. Massachusetts.
In Caetano they decided that a specifically nonlethal device would be covered by a law that primarily protects lethal weapons. The concerns about citing Heller and 5'1'' homeless women stungunning exes wasn't exactly worrying to the judges so it was fairly easy to rule on with very uncompromising language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Is SCOTUS going to allow popular opinion to reinterpret the right?
They have before, so there's no reason they wouldn't here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Rights are supposed to be rights, period. Not something dependent upon sticking a wet finger in the wind.
Yeah, well, that kind of talk is exactly what Sovereign Citizens say, and I don't think any of the arguments Wesley Snipes made kept him out of prison, nor has any reference to the 10th amendment kept the feds from doing what they will, or in Scalia's own words,

Quote:
"Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong,” Scalia said. “And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”
https://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...u_think_it_won

The entire idea of "cite some magic words and BANG you get what you want!" Is based on a kid's idea of magic and magic words where magic is bound by laws that aren't created by judges and whatever magic words you say ALWAYS do as they say. We don't live in a world of magic, we live in a world of men.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 06-12-2021, 5:34 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A very interesting discussion but the fact remains Scotus took this case in which :
1) the state allows for CCW and bans open carry
2) the state AND the opinion below accept CCW as satisfying the right
3) almost identical cases were denied cert last year and we now have a new pro-2A judge replacing an anti
Add in the Peruta and Rogers dissents, I see no way the court follows mrrabbitts unless you get liberal justices to support open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 06-12-2021, 5:38 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
A very interesting discussion but the fact remains Scotus took this case in which :
1) the state allows for CCW and bans open carry
2) the state AND the opinion below accept CCW as satisfying the right
3) almost identical cases were denied cert last year and we now have a new pro-2A judge replacing an anti
Add in the Peruta and Rogers dissents, I see no way the court follows mrrabbitts unless you get liberal justices to support open carry.

That's liberals with open carry. I'd take open carry in a heartbeat not just to exercise the right, but having spent time in places WITH open carry the amount of trolling and normalization it brings to guns is something Liberals fear in their souls because they know EXACTLY the same playbook was followed for Gay Rights, communism, anti-war stuff and it worked. No way the liberals will EVER support Open Carry. They managed to get men with dresses kissing in public normalized that way. They know and will never, ever agree to it. All you need to do is witness Florida fighting OC to see that dynamic.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 7:04 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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