SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place

[task0778]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

 

[2aguy]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

 

[2aguy]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

It is also unConstitutional in that there must be one way to carry a gun for self defense....this sheriff banned concealed carry, but does not have open carry.....that way they are banning all carry outside of the home...and Heller points out they can't do that.....

Here is a look from Justice Thomas...

BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Cert in Peruta vs. San Diego County - The Truth About Guns

The Supreme Court had been kicking the case of Peruta vs. San Diego County down the road for weeks now. The case centers on the right to bear arms outside the home (see our posts hereand here). Speculation was that the delay was due to Justices waiting to see whether or not Anthony Kennedy would retire at the end of the current term.

Court watchers posited that if he decided to call it a career, the Court would grant cert. That given his record of casting swing votes alternating between the Court’s left and right wings, taking the case while he’s still on the bench would be too big a gamble for either side to stomach.

Well today, on the last day of the court’s term, Peruta was denied cert. Two justices dissented from the decision not to hear the case; Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. That’s a portion of Thomas’s dissent above. He also had this to say:

 

[Rustic]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

An legally armed nation is a safe nation... fact

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[skews13]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

No it doesn't have to be picked up, and probably won't.

Which I believe would make you wrong.

Of course you are welcome to use law degree, and your rapier wit to try to get it back before the court again.

In the meantime don't get caught with your gun outside of the house in San Diego or you'll go to jail.

No doubt in your case telling the officers putting you in handcuffs how wrong they are.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is a good move by the SC to wait

we have 4 strong pro 2nd

and 4 anti 2nd amendment

leaving it up to wishie washie --- kennedy


soon enough the court will tilt 5 /4 pro 2nd

then will be the time to re examine the issue

could even go 6-3 in the near future

 

[Rustic]

it is a good move by the SC to wait

we have 4 strong pro 2nd

and 4 anti 2nd amendment

leaving it up to wishie washie --- kennedy


soon enough the court will tilt 5 /4 pro 2nd

then will be the time to re examine the issue

could even go 6-3 in the near future

Yep, the fireman issue in this country is the most important issue it faces...
An unarmed nation is a doomed nation... fact

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is a good move by the SC to wait

we have 4 strong pro 2nd

and 4 anti 2nd amendment

leaving it up to wishie washie --- kennedy


soon enough the court will tilt 5 /4 pro 2nd

then will be the time to re examine the issue

could even go 6-3 in the near future

Yep, the fireman issue in this country is the most important issue it faces...
An unarmed nation is a doomed nation... fact

yup why take a chance with kennedy

soon he will be out

possibly another one

 

[task0778]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

 

[JBond]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

 

[Rustic]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

The funny thing is whether someone carries or not it is absolutely no one else's business… fact

 

[JBond]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

I believe jurisdictions that forbid people from defending themselves should be held financially liable for every crime. Every break-in, every assault, every robbery, every murder, all of it. They refused to protect the public and refused to allow the public to defend themselves, so they should be liable for the result.

 

[task0778]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

It's politics, playing to their base. Using fear to get re-elected.

 

[JBond]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

The funny thing is whether someone carries or not it is absolutely no one else's business… fact

In Kansas, we agree!

 

[martybegan]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

A right is a right is a right. Why should an elected or unelected official get to decide if i can exercise my RKBA in public?

 

[Timmy]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

 

[Rustic]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

Quit falling down the well
You have to have a valid ID to buy a firearm… Dip shit

 

[JBond]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

I agree. Let's make voter id a national mandate.

 

[JBond]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

Quit falling down the well
You have to have a valid ID to buy a firearm… Dip shit

Yes and no. Sometimes the Feds illegally purchase weapons and send them to drug dealers.

 

[OKTexas]

The National Reciprocity Act can fix all this. CA citizens can get nonresident CHLs form other States and carry in CA.


.