SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place

[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 ?

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

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

 

[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

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

How do you stop voter fraud then? You need to quit falling down the well… LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Wow it must make you feel safe to bow down to authority and never question whether said authority is worthy of obeying

 

[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....

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.

And no one said blacks couldn't vote either....the democrats simply said that they needed to pass a test first, and then pay a small tax in order to vote.....if they can deny an otherwise law abiding citizen the Right to carry a gun for self defense for no other reason than the Sheriff doesn't want them to......we might as well say local governments no longer need to allow everyone to vote....or to be safe from searches and any other Right that needs to get permission to access.....

 

[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....

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.

And the Supreme Court isn't the final say either.....just ask the Plessy v. Ferguson or Dredd Scott...or do you think they ruled correctly in those too?

 

[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....

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

Those do not require a test or a fee...they are free, and they simply identify who you are....there is no impediment to the exercise of the Right.....unlike this which is the government saying "No," you can't exercise that Right at all....

 

[2aguy]

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


.

Imagine if they get that done....the heads that will explode.........

 

[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....

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

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

No one said there can't be limits..we already have limits....you cannot be a felon and own, buy or carry a gun, you can't be dangerously mentally ill...and you cannot use a gun to commit a crime....rape, robbery or murder, extortion...

So that line you anti-gunners use about there are no limits on the 2nd Amemdment are not even remotely true....

The limits you want are limits on people who have broken no law, committed no crime....just like when the democrats told blacks they could vote....but only if they passed a test and paid a small tax......that was UnConstitutional and so is banning carrying a gun......

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

They didn't leave them in place they flat pussed out and refused to hear the case.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Its about the elite's fears of a corrupt system being overthrown.

 

[tinydancer]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 14th over rule this Sheriff?

 

[OKTexas]

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


.

Imagine if they get that done....the heads that will explode.........

Yep, you need to contact your congresscritters and push them to get it done. A TX congressman this weekend talked about a new bill for congress only. I told my folks to just pass the national reciprocity act and congressmen can carry just like every one else.


.

 

[2aguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 14th over rule this Sheriff?

Yeah....it should....but someone actually has to push it....

 

[tinydancer]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 14th over rule this Sheriff?

Yeah....it should....but someone actually has to push it....

Wasn't the Heller judgement enough. Because they quoted the 14th in that judgement.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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


.

Not quite.

It only applies to federal land.

“(A) A unit of the National Park System.
“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
“(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.


Text - H.R.38 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017


>>>>

 

[2aguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 14th over rule this Sheriff?

Yeah....it should....but someone actually has to push it....

Wasn't the Heller judgement enough. Because they quoted the 14th in that judgement.

Yeah....the Heller decision was enough, but the courts of appeal are ruling against it...ignoring it so they need to be called on it by the Supreme Court.....the most recent was the 4th Circuit, which completely ignored Heller....

Here is more on what Thomas said.....

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the Court declined to hear a case challenging California’s handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county’s refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote after most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

“But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.

 

[Flash]

They passed on this one to wait until there are more Conservatives on the court. Probably because Kennedy was not on board like the other Conservative members wanted him to be. Like Heller they would have to water down the ruling in order to get him to sign on.

They will get to it (or another case) latter after Trump appoints a couple more judges.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

Wait a minute
How is asking a person to prove via ID who they are and if they are indeed eligible to vote limiting anyone's legal right to vote?

Oh yeah it's not.

 

[2aguy]

They passed on this one to wait until there are more Conservatives on the court. Probably because Kennedy was not on board like the other Conservative members wanted him to be. Like Heller they would have to water down the ruling in order to get him to sign on.

They will get to it (or another case) latter after Trump appoints a couple more judges.

I hope so.......that was the whole point to voting for Trump....

 

[tinydancer]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 14th over rule this Sheriff?

Yeah....it should....but someone actually has to push it....

Wasn't the Heller judgement enough. Because they quoted the 14th in that judgement.

Yeah....the Heller decision was enough, but the courts of appeal are ruling against it...ignoring it so they need to be called on it by the Supreme Court.....the most recent was the 4th Circuit, which completely ignored Heller....

Here is more on what Thomas said.....

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the Court declined to hear a case challenging California’s handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county’s refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote after most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

“But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.

Hey thanks for that Justice Thomas piece.Spot on.