SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place

[OKTexas]

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


>>>>

You might want to read that again, I say this because, YOU'RE WRONG.


.

 

[2aguy]

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


>>>>

You might want to read that again, I say this because, YOU'RE WRONG.


.

Yes.....national concealed carry reciprocity would simply mean your ability to carry a gun in one state would apply to all states....just like when the left forced states to accept gay marriage through the courts....

 

[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.

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

I think that was the strategy. The last thing the Conservatives on the Court wanted was for the swing voter Kennedy to be an asshole and water down the ruling. That is really what happen with Heller and McDonald. Scalia had to water them down more than he wanted to in order to get Kennedy to sign on.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Fireman????????

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Just wait until he is sued for failing to issue a concealed carry permit to someone who gets killed by someone with a restraining order against them.

 

[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

Fireman????????

Oops...

 

[hortysir]

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.

ooohhh...The eebull semi-automatic lol
Hope I don't scare you too bad and send you running to your safe space but my .380ACP, .22LR, and .40SW are all semiautomatic and can fire "hundreds of rounds in minutes" depending on how full and how fast I can reload.

We have a UNITED STATES' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Explain to me in your best SCOTUS dissension how state or local laws override that"

 

[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 ?

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

You act as though there are no safeguards in place already . You chase this mythical voter fraud that would some how end wh theses overreaching ID requirements . The real voter fraud is in illegal redistricting and surpression.

 

[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 ?

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.

It's limited when you ask for a specific form of ID designed to surpress the vote .

Now I ask you . How does a gun registry limit your 2nd amendment rights ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

no it is good they passed this up

with a 4-4 split in the court

why take a chance on kennedy

soon enough it will be a solid 5-4

or perhaps a 6-3 if things go well

then it is time to revisit the issue

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

no it is good they passed this up

with a 4-4 split in the court

why take a chance on kennedy

soon enough it will be a solid 5-4

or perhaps a 6-3 if things go well

then it is time to revisit the issue

example of why not to trust kennedy

Supreme Court Limits Rights Of Property Owners

Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-214_f1gj.pdf

 

[Rustic]

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

You act as though there are no safeguards in place already . You chase this mythical voter fraud that would some how end wh theses overreaching ID requirements . The real voter fraud is in illegal redistricting and surpression.

quit falling down the well
Voter fraud is not having an ID when you're voting…

 

[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.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

 

[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

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 that. You make up some really dumb shit in your head.

 

[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.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

Can you articulate why you do not believe citizens have the right to defend themselves away from their home? Or maybe you do believe they have the right and I misinterpreted your post. I don't believe security and self defense should be location based.

 

[Preacher]

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.

Unbelievable. What the hell happened to a CONSERVATIVE court? It was a 7-2 decision...unfuckingbelievable. Gorsuch and Thomas dissented....pieces of shit so called conservatives Roberts,Alito,and Kennedy. We need Kennedy AND Robert to fucking die because NEITHER is a legit conservative along with Ginsburg and Breyer to die or retire to even make it a decent court. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with Alito. Roberts has been a POS since he helped Obamacare stay in effect.

 

[JBond]

Baltimore is a tough city to obtain a ccw permit in. During the looting and riots, citizens and business owners were unable to defend themselves and their property. Then the liberal democrat leadership forced the police to stand down and allowed the criminals free reign. Looks like they will pay big for their failure.

Riot-Destroyed Businesses Drop Massive Legal Bomb on the City of Baltimore

 

[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.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. And every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal law

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.

is that for just that right or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

Can you articulate why you do not believe citizens have the right to defend themselves away from their home? Or maybe you do believe they have the right and I misinterpreted your post. I don't believe security and self defense should be location based.

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

 

[Timmy]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !