U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights cases

[pknopp]

pknopp name the cities so I can provide you the links to those municipal web sites and show you they require permits.

I have to go right now. But I will be back. I hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake.

Did I post the statement from the authority on our rights? Yes, there are things on the books of cities but they are not enforceable. That's why you need to know your rights.

 

[2aguy]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit. If you hold one without it and your area allows it, great.

I've been to many rallies that permits were required on public land.

I specifically sated public university. If you go to use a public university you have to get permission and fill out a ton of forms. Since it's a public university you are dealing with the government. A government agency for those public universities will provide, process the forms and grant you to speak at that public university. Which they always do. It's the students who then speak up and try to prevent it which I think they also have the right to do but it's more effective to allow the speaker but no one show up. So the speaker has spent a bunch of money to speak but no one showed up to listen. That's much more effective than just telling someone you can't go there and speak.

As far as I could see from Heller the government says you have the right to protect yourself in your home and private property. That the government also has the right to regulate weapons. It's right there in the ruling. Plus it's right there in the constitution in the Commerce Clause. There are no exceptions for weapons or anyone's rights.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to overturn those laws. Whether you or I like it or not. We live in America. Our constitution says the Supreme Court is the final word. We accept it or we can move.

I've accepted a lot of rulings that I didn't agree with. That's life. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you don't.

I enjoy this win. Hopefully less people will get harmed or killed because of it.

The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling....... the laws are still in violation of Heller since they did make that ruling.

The Supremes are allowing lower court decisions to stand.

The lower courts mistakenly said the New Jersey and Maryland laws are constitutional.

If the Supremes felt strongly opposed to that idea, they would have taken the cases.

Kavanaugh wanted to take them on.

No......again, it is a 4/4 court and neither side wants to trust Roberts.

 

[2aguy]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit. If you hold one without it and your area allows it, great.

I've been to many rallies that permits were required on public land.

I specifically sated public university. If you go to use a public university you have to get permission and fill out a ton of forms. Since it's a public university you are dealing with the government. A government agency for those public universities will provide, process the forms and grant you to speak at that public university. Which they always do. It's the students who then speak up and try to prevent it which I think they also have the right to do but it's more effective to allow the speaker but no one show up. So the speaker has spent a bunch of money to speak but no one showed up to listen. That's much more effective than just telling someone you can't go there and speak.

As far as I could see from Heller the government says you have the right to protect yourself in your home and private property. That the government also has the right to regulate weapons. It's right there in the ruling. Plus it's right there in the constitution in the Commerce Clause. There are no exceptions for weapons or anyone's rights.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to overturn those laws. Whether you or I like it or not. We live in America. Our constitution says the Supreme Court is the final word. We accept it or we can move.

I've accepted a lot of rulings that I didn't agree with. That's life. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you don't.

I enjoy this win. Hopefully less people will get harmed or killed because of it.

The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling....... the laws are still in violation of Heller since they did make that ruling.

They let stand lower rulings which is the same thing.

Nope...... if a ruling violates the Bill of Rights, and previous Supreme Court rulings, it is not a valid ruling.......they are breaking the law.

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit. If you hold one without it and your area allows it, great.

I've been to many rallies that permits were required on public land.

I specifically sated public university. If you go to use a public university you have to get permission and fill out a ton of forms. Since it's a public university you are dealing with the government. A government agency for those public universities will provide, process the forms and grant you to speak at that public university. Which they always do. It's the students who then speak up and try to prevent it which I think they also have the right to do but it's more effective to allow the speaker but no one show up. So the speaker has spent a bunch of money to speak but no one showed up to listen. That's much more effective than just telling someone you can't go there and speak.

As far as I could see from Heller the government says you have the right to protect yourself in your home and private property. That the government also has the right to regulate weapons. It's right there in the ruling. Plus it's right there in the constitution in the Commerce Clause. There are no exceptions for weapons or anyone's rights.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to overturn those laws. Whether you or I like it or not. We live in America. Our constitution says the Supreme Court is the final word. We accept it or we can move.

I've accepted a lot of rulings that I didn't agree with. That's life. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you don't.

I enjoy this win. Hopefully less people will get harmed or killed because of it.

The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling....... the laws are still in violation of Heller since they did make that ruling.

The Supremes are allowing lower court decisions to stand.

The lower courts mistakenly said the New Jersey and Maryland laws are constitutional.

If the Supremes felt strongly opposed to that idea, they would have taken the cases.

Kavanaugh wanted to take them on.

No......again, it is a 4/4 court and neither side wants to trust Roberts.

From what I've read the ruling was 7-2. Only two justices said they would have looked at the cases. Now maybe one can argue that some passed for now. Maybe that's true but the gay rights issue was decided 6-3.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Courts decide what is Constitutional, not Congress.

FDR tried to manipulate the court. It didn't go over very well.

I think you're missing my point completely.

Discussion may likely be futile.

Proceed...

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit. If you hold one without it and your area allows it, great.

I've been to many rallies that permits were required on public land.

I specifically sated public university. If you go to use a public university you have to get permission and fill out a ton of forms. Since it's a public university you are dealing with the government. A government agency for those public universities will provide, process the forms and grant you to speak at that public university. Which they always do. It's the students who then speak up and try to prevent it which I think they also have the right to do but it's more effective to allow the speaker but no one show up. So the speaker has spent a bunch of money to speak but no one showed up to listen. That's much more effective than just telling someone you can't go there and speak.

As far as I could see from Heller the government says you have the right to protect yourself in your home and private property. That the government also has the right to regulate weapons. It's right there in the ruling. Plus it's right there in the constitution in the Commerce Clause. There are no exceptions for weapons or anyone's rights.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to overturn those laws. Whether you or I like it or not. We live in America. Our constitution says the Supreme Court is the final word. We accept it or we can move.

I've accepted a lot of rulings that I didn't agree with. That's life. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you don't.

I enjoy this win. Hopefully less people will get harmed or killed because of it.

The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling....... the laws are still in violation of Heller since they did make that ruling.

They let stand lower rulings which is the same thing.

Nope...... if a ruling violates the Bill of Rights, and previous Supreme Court rulings, it is not a valid ruling.......they are breaking the law.

I don't disagree but it's still the law.

 

[g5000]

pknopp name the cities so I can provide you the links to those municipal web sites and show you they require permits.

I have to go right now. But I will be back. I hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake.

Did I post the statement from the authority on our rights? Yes, there are things on the books of cities but they are not enforceable. That's why you need to know your rights.

So now you are moving the goalposts, eh?

You need a permit. I guarantee you the protest which you posted a photo of got a permit.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp name the cities so I can provide you the links to those municipal web sites and show you they require permits.

I have to go right now. But I will be back. I hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake.

Did I post the statement from the authority on our rights? Yes, there are things on the books of cities but they are not enforceable. That's why you need to know your rights.

So now you are moving the goalposts, eh?

You need a permit. I guarantee you the protest which you posted a photo of got a permit.

I moved nothing. There is the ACLU and there is you. I think it's clear which to believe.

 

[g5000]

pknopp name the cities so I can provide you the links to those municipal web sites and show you they require permits.

I have to go right now. But I will be back. I hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake.

Did I post the statement from the authority on our rights? Yes, there are things on the books of cities but they are not enforceable. That's why you need to know your rights.

So now you are moving the goalposts, eh?

You need a permit. I guarantee you the protest which you posted a photo of got a permit.

I moved nothing. There is the ACLU and there is you. I think it's clear which to believe.

Name. The. Cities.

Coward.

The ACLU has not ended the requirement of permits for marches. You are full of shit.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp name the cities so I can provide you the links to those municipal web sites and show you they require permits.

I have to go right now. But I will be back. I hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake.

Did I post the statement from the authority on our rights? Yes, there are things on the books of cities but they are not enforceable. That's why you need to know your rights.

So now you are moving the goalposts, eh?

You need a permit. I guarantee you the protest which you posted a photo of got a permit.

I moved nothing. There is the ACLU and there is you. I think it's clear which to believe.

Name. The. Cities.

Coward.

The ACLU has not ended the requirement of permits for marches. You are full of shit.

There is no requirements to end.

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Protesters’ Rights

What part of that do you not understand?

Hague v C.I.O

New Jersey tried to argue they could ban certain speech. Jersey City tried to ban people from assembly without a permit.

What's the point of a permit if it could not be turned down anyway?

As noted, I did discuss my protest with the Sheriff's office and the local prosecutors office because I did not want any trouble but I got no one's permission nor did I get any permits.

Just as today's was spontaneous overall. People decided this morning to hold a protest. We did.

Do you really think that all the protests going on are getting permits beforehand? LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

The Supreme Court seriously failed the American people today. I will explain below.

The New Jersey case is Rogers v. Grewal.

Link: Rogers v. Grewal - SCOTUSblog

The Maryland case is Malpasso v. Pallozzi.

Link: Malpasso v. Pallozzi - SCOTUSblog


Maryland and New Jersey require a law-abiding citizen to prove they have a need for a gun.

That's bullshit. Total. Bullshit.

A right is not something you prove you need. That is the exact opposite meaning of a right.

Imagine if you were required to prove you needed midget porn. The ACLU would be screaming like monkeys if a state passed such a law, and the Supreme Court would shoot it down unanimously.

Imagine if you had to prove you needed to vote. Those kind of laws actually existed and the Supremes blew them away.


The Supreme Court just allowed serious violations of our rights to stand. This is outrageous.

Actually not – ‘may issue’ concealed carry laws are Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; no rights are being ‘violated.’

‘May issue’ concealed carry laws are bad law, but that a law is bad doesn’t necessarily make it un-Constitutional.

Again, I’d like to see the Court take up such a case and invalidate ‘may issue’ because in my subjective, personal opinion it’s an undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

But as a fact of law ‘may issue’ is perfectly Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit.

No you don't.

Yeah. You do.

Pick a city. Any city.

How about the city I showed in the pic above?

I was at a protest a couple weeks ago also. No permits.

View attachment 350767

You do not have to get the governments permission to exercise your Constitutional rights.

(One in Ohio and one in WV)

But government has the authority to limit or restrict the exercising of one’s Constitutional rights consistent with the applicable case law.

For example, prohibiting camping in certain public areas as a form of political protest is perfectly Constitutional as such prohibitions are content-neutral and address a legitimate government interest (see, e. g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

That citizens might act absent the consent of the government doesn’t necessarily mean those actions are entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[Dana7360]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit.

No you don't.

Yes they do. It's up to the state or city government to decide who needs one or not.

It's mostly for those rallies that are large or include marches through city streets but not exclusively.

Here's the list of the laws and requirements in each state for rallies. Which includes permits.

Protest Laws by State - FindLaw

Below you will find key information on protest test laws by state including examples of demonstration permit procedures from key cities. Learn more at FindLaw.com

civilrights.findlaw.com

If you're just one or a handful of people no, you don't need a permit. Go out and stand on your soapbox all you want but make sure that the police will tolerate it. They can charge you for being a public nuisance.

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit.

No you don't.

Yeah. You do.

Pick a city. Any city.

How about the city I showed in the pic above?

I was at a protest a couple weeks ago also. No permits.

View attachment 350767

You do not have to get the governments permission to exercise your Constitutional rights.

(One in Ohio and one in WV)

But government has the authority to limit or restrict the exercising of one’s Constitutional rights consistent with the applicable case law.

For example, prohibiting camping in certain public areas as a form of political protest is perfectly Constitutional as such prohibitions are content-neutral and address a legitimate government interest (see, e. g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

That citizens might act absent the consent of the government doesn’t necessarily mean those actions are entitled to Constitutional protections.

I have no idea what camping has to do with anything I've discussed.

 

[pknopp]

I'm surprised they turned them all away.

I'm glad they did.

They just upheld existing case law and the constitution.

The constitution gives the government the right to regulate commerce. Selling and buying a weapon is commerce.

There is no place in the constitution that says the government can't regulate weapons, sales of weapons or weapon permits.

The people have a right to know why people feel the need to carry a concealed or open carry a weapon. I applaud New Jersey for having that law. Telling the state the reason for actions isn't unconstitutional or denying anyone a weapon.

I applaud all states that put proper safety laws and regulations on weapons.

I don't want the states regulating rights.

Who lost their weapon?

No one has taken anyone's right to own a weapon away from them.

Regulating and imposing safety laws isn't taking weapons away from anyone.

The states have the right to regulate rights. It's done all the time. You can't yell fire in a theater.

I'm stopping there.......you are allowed to yell fire in a theater. This may still be one of the most misunderstood rulings still argued.

The ruling about you not being able to do that was a very short lived ruling and was overturned.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Ok but you can't speak and incite a riot.

If you do something that gets someone hurt you can be held liable.

You can't get an abortion in many places without telling why and jumping through a gazillion hoops.

No argument.

If you want to hold a rally on public property you have to tell the government why and fill out a ton of forms.

No you don't. I did it today.

View attachment 350719

If you want to speak at a public University you have to fill out a ton of forms and tell the government why.

If you want to speak at the university proper you have to get the Universities permission. If it's a private university you have to get their permission anywhere. If it's a public university you can preach until you are content in generally accessed areas.

What makes the second amendment different from other rights?

The answer to that is nothing. Heller ruled just that.

Heller didn't. Again, Heller ruled that they were not necessarily saying there were no restrictions. Heller did not say there was.

Yes the government can and does regulate our rights.

You don't have to like it. I don't like it. We do have to follow the law.

We have to follow the law but what is more important is actually knowing the law.

I know that if anyone wants to hold a rally on public property they must have a permit.

No you don't.

Yes they do. It's up to the state or city government to decide who needs one or not.

It's mostly for those rallies that are large or include marches through city streets but not exclusively.

Here's the list of the laws and requirements in each state for rallies. Which includes permits.

Protest Laws by State - FindLaw

Below you will find key information on protest test laws by state including examples of demonstration permit procedures from key cities. Learn more at FindLaw.com

civilrights.findlaw.com

If you're just one or a handful of people no, you don't need a permit. Go out and stand on your soapbox all you want but make sure that the police will tolerate it. They can charge you for being a public nuisance.

You can't block roads. I stated that many times. That has little to do with the fact that you do NOT need to get the governments permission to protest.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of new cases seeking to expand gun rights."

U.S. Supreme Court turns away 10 gun rights cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.

www.reuters.com

A majority of the justices are clearly content with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Court also seems content with allowing the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, save for the prohibition of handguns.

You read this, that indicate that the second amendment is being ignored?

In the New Jersey case, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit challenging the state’s law mandating that people who want to carry handguns in public must show they have a special reason before they can get a permit.

The state seems to require an explanation for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, when they already have that right according to the second amendment.

New Jersey is full of cow shit!

Which States don't require an explanation for a CCW?

Most of them, now.