Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[radical right]

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

Sure there is, its called stray shots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

That isn't overturning Heller, it is making cities like NYC fall in line with Heller. A separate decision will cover concealed or open carry, which in my opinion any locality must allow one or the other for any law abiding citizen.

You still don't understand but that's OK, marty.

 

[radical right]

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

Article 4
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Republican form of government means a government 'of the people / by the people' where people vote for their representatives. By guaranteeing such government, they guarantee the people the right to vote.

 

[martybegan]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

That isn't overturning Heller, it is making cities like NYC fall in line with Heller. A separate decision will cover concealed or open carry, which in my opinion any locality must allow one or the other for any law abiding citizen.

You still don't understand but that's OK, marty.

I understand fine, oxygen thief.

 

[JakeStarkey]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

That isn't overturning Heller, it is making cities like NYC fall in line with Heller. A separate decision will cover concealed or open carry, which in my opinion any locality must allow one or the other for any law abiding citizen.

You still don't understand but that's OK, marty.

I understand fine, oxygen thief.

marty, no, you don't. You never have really understood. You want to quarrel today, so you are on personal ignore for the rest of the day.

 

[miketx]

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

Article 4
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Republican form of government means a government 'of the people / by the people' where people vote for their representatives. By guaranteeing such government, they guarantee the people the right to vote.

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

 

[radical right]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

 

[martybegan]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

That isn't overturning Heller, it is making cities like NYC fall in line with Heller. A separate decision will cover concealed or open carry, which in my opinion any locality must allow one or the other for any law abiding citizen.

You still don't understand but that's OK, marty.

I understand fine, oxygen thief.

marty, no, you don't. You never have really understood. You want to quarrel today, so you are on personal ignore for the rest of the day.

Coward.

 

[miketx]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

People should be registered to vote and own guns, yes.

 

[radical right]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

The 14th guarantees citizenship of they were born here. nothing about needing a piece of paper. They accepted family bibles, census records, or even neighbors vouching for them to allow them to vote.

 

[yiostheoy]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

The 14th guarantees citizenship of they were born here. nothing about needing a piece of paper. They accepted family bibles, census records, or even neighbors vouching for them to allow them to vote.

But you still need to prove it somehow.

That's why we have created birth certificates and voter registration cards.

Works like a charm.

 

[miketx]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

The 14th guarantees citizenship of they were born here. nothing about needing a piece of paper. They accepted family bibles, census records, or even neighbors vouching for them to allow them to vote.

Awww, look how the regressive gas bag wants illegals to vote. Isn't that cute?

 

[yiostheoy]

Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.

They can certainly be used to impose a burden in order to dissuade those from exercising a right who should be allowed to do so. It would be very easy to limit the availability of the “training” or to cause it to be prohibitively expensive. It is the exact same concept, with the exact same intent and effect, as the poll taxes and literacy tests of old used to suppress voting rights.

Where I live you can get training any day of the week. You need to book a couple of days in advance is all. The gun shops love to give people training because it makes money for them.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

The Constitution makes Federal Law the supreme law of the land. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

"Just Us" Anthony Kennedy is unreliable, even though he was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He voted for Gayist marriage.

 

[yiostheoy]

. Some people are too stupid to be using a gun in my opinion.

This is definitely true.

Question is how do you determine it?

Short of a court order from a judge or a prior criminal conviction in court there is no way to know it.

In some cases of severe Downs syndrome you can tell. But not all mental retardation is that obvious.

 

[radical right]

But you still need to prove it somehow.

That's why we have created birth certificates and voter registration cards.

Works like a charm.

Why the sudden change after 140 years?

 

[miketx]

. Some people are too stupid to be using a gun in my opinion.

This is definitely true.

Question is how do you determine it?

Short of a court order from a judge or a prior criminal conviction in court there is no way to know it.

In some cases of severe Downs syndrome you can tell. But not all mental retardation is that obvious.

How do you determine it? You can't determine it before it happens. You can only hope to minimize it by education.

 

[miketx]

But you still need to prove it somehow.

That's why we have created birth certificates and voter registration cards.

Works like a charm.

Why the sudden change after 140 years?

Now there's a flip flop! The libs always rail about how anyone who supports the BoR's and the constitution wants to go back to the 18th century or there abouts. I can't recall what they call this, but it starts with a H.