Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. - Page 5

Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

This is a discussion on Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by livewire9880 I would like to point something out here. There seems to be a misconception that the SCOTUS has ruled that carry ...

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I would like to point something out here. There seems to be a misconception that the SCOTUS has ruled that carry restrictions are upheld and legitimate. This is NOT the case as far as I can tell.

    In Heller (and repeated in McDonald) the cases were about the first part of the 2nd Amendment; i.e. keeping arms. Both cases were regarding the fact that the plaintiff lived in a jurisdiction where it was illegal to own a handgun for self defense. The quote is:


    (shamelessly copied from azchevy)

    This isn't a ruling on carry of weapons, just a statement that they were not ruling on carrying in that case as it wasn't part of the original complaint. Since that time, cases regarding carry have been brought to the Court, and all of those cases have been rejected.
    No sir there hasn't, you are correct in that the SCOTUS has refused to hear ANY cases on carry.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I would like to point something out here. There seems to be a misconception that the SCOTUS has ruled that carry restrictions are upheld and legitimate. This is NOT the case as far as I can tell.

    In Heller (and repeated in McDonald) the cases were about the first part of the 2nd Amendment; i.e. keeping arms. Both cases were regarding the fact that the plaintiff lived in a jurisdiction where it was illegal to own a handgun for self defense. The quote is:


    (shamelessly copied from azchevy)

    This isn't a ruling on carry of weapons, just a statement that they were not ruling on carrying in that case as it wasn't part of the original complaint. Since that time, cases regarding carry have been brought to the Court, and all of those cases have been rejected.
    Clearly, SCOTUS is upholding some state prohibitions and has yet to rule on, for example, whether the 14th amendment applies to states to limit their power to prohibit the right to bear as the court ruled it does to limit their power to prohibit the right to keep.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Clearly, SCOTUS is upholding some state prohibitions and has yet to rule on, for example, whether the 14th amendment applies to states to limit their power to prohibit the right to bear as the court ruled it does to limit their power to prohibit the right to keep.
    Wait... What?

    Edit: I changed my mind... I don't understand the rest of your post either.
    Last edited by livewire; March 14th, 2012 at 04:44 PM. Reason: huh?
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  4. #64
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Same old liberal side-step, if you agree with the view it's "healthy discourse" and if you don't agree with it it's "seditious libel".
    Same old double standard...it's ok for Katie Couric to stand up on national TV and state "he's not my president" referring to Bush but if I call the imposter an imposter it becomes sedition.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
    If theres not two sides to a road, we all go the same direction until we drive into the ocean.
    No, it is not alright for anyone, and if Couric did that it wasn't right. We have a huge problem in this country with
    hyperbolic irrational distorted misleading untrue crap passing for political discourse. When it crosses the line to
    libel it should be treated as such--- as in our distant past. The key features of libel and slander being that
    the statement is untrue (truth is a defense); malicious; and made to discredit the honor of someone. It isn't hard
    to discern what is libel and what is just talk. And it isn't hard to tell the difference between an exaggeration for effect
    and a bald faced lie.

    Dueling, though illegal, was a popular way of settling some of these matters during the first few decades of our
    life as a nation. We once got to witness the bizarre incident of a Vice President presiding over The Senate while under
    indictment for murder. It was his only safe place.

    Let's ratchet the inflated language back across the board, and seriously, either the courts need to tighten up on the
    public figure exemption to civil liability for slander and libel, or we need to reinstate the Sedition Act, because what we are doing to ourselves now stinks.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Wait... What?

    Edit: I changed my mind... I don't understand the rest of your post either.
    I mean Heller upholds state prohibitions on selling to felons and carrying on school grounds.... Heller and McDonald apply the 14th amendment to DC and states in the case of owning (keeping) arms - effectively limiting states' power to ban ownership. SCOTUS has yet to hear a carry case but will hopefully rule that the 14th amendment applies to states in the case of carrying arms.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I mean the Heller dicta upholds state prohibitions on selling to felons and carrying on school grounds.... Heller and McDonald apply the 14th amendment to DC and states in the case of owning (keeping) arms. SCOTUS has yet to hear a carry case but will hopefully rule that the 14th amendment applies to states in the case of carrying arms.
    Okay, I understood that one :)

    I would expect that SCOTUS would rule at the state and interstate level as to mandating that states have shall-issue permits or permit-less carry, but will leave the actual prohibited locations and other technicalities up to the states themselves.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    No sir there hasn't, you are correct in that the SCOTUS has refused to hear ANY cases on carry.
    So, let's see. Is there a practical effect of such a refusal? Consider the death penalty appeal. Refusing to
    hear the case is the same as ruling against the convict and assures his rapid demise.

    Not taking a case is a type of decision too.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, let's see. Is there a practical effect of such a refusal? Consider the death penalty appeal. Refusing to
    hear the case is the same as ruling against the convict and assures his rapid demise.

    Not taking a case is a type of decision too.
    I disagree... it's more of a "Leave us alone and go figure it out yourselves", much like a child pleading for parental intervention in an argument. SCOTUS only rules in cases when it wants to create permanence, where it will ignore cases that would create a precedent they aren't ready to create.
    Last edited by livewire; March 14th, 2012 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Punctuation FAIL
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  9. #69
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Okay, I understood that one :)

    I would expect that SCOTUS would rule at the state and interstate level as to mandating that states have shall-issue permits or permit-less carry, but will leave the actual prohibited locations and other technicalities up to the states themselves.
    I expect something of the sort but was wrong once before ;) I hope that the states draw the line on what municipalities, etc., may prohibit.

    Interestingly, it stands, however, that on the 1897 Robertson case SCOTUS "commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I expect something of the sort but was wrong once before ;) I hope that the states draw the line on what municipalities, etc., may prohibit.

    Interestingly, it stands, however, that in the 1897 Robertson case SCOTUS "commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
    Having not read the case you're quoting.... was that a comment or part of the actual opinion? What was the case regarding?
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  11. #71
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, let's see. Is there a practical effect of such a refusal? Consider the death penalty appeal. Refusing to
    hear the case is the same as ruling against the convict and assures his rapid demise.

    Not taking a case is a type of decision too.
    Or could it be much more sinister than that. Are they trying to hold off hearing anymore Second Amendment cases, in hopes of getting one more "new" Justice? Knowing full well they could turn the tide against the 2A.

    Make no mistake, the administration in power now is anti-gun and vehemently so.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Or could it be much more sinister than that. Are they trying to hold off hearing anymore Second Amendment cases, in hopes of getting one more "new" Justice. Knowing full well they could turn the tide against the 2A.
    that's... scary, and a little plausible.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  13. #73
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Or could it be much more sinister than that. Are they trying to hold off hearing anymore Second Amendment cases, in hopes of getting one more "new" Justice? Knowing full well they could turn the tide against the 2A.

    Make no mistake, the administration in power now is anti-gun and vehemently so.
    Why would "they" do that? it is already a 5-4 majority. If "they" wanted to "they" could have not made the rulings "they" made on McDonald and heller.

    If four justices agree that a specific petition for writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner.

    Soooo the 5 who are for gun rights could just decide to hear the case..... the 4 anti-s have nothing to do with it. If "they" whoever "they" is wanted to, "they" could have shot heller down like a dirigible. So "they" does not exist.......

    I think the conspiracy theories and tinfoil are way too deep for this one
    Hopyard likes this.

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Having not read the case you're quoting.... was that a comment or part of the actual opinion? What was the case regarding?
    It's an Obiter dictum from Robertson v. Baldwin. The case regards seamens' contractural committment with their ship masters vs apprehension for involuntary servitude. The ensuing comment is sandwiched between disparate rights
    Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion...
    The comment did two things. On one hand, it broached unstated exceptions to rights guaranteed. On the other, it referenced the Second Amendment right as applicable to an individual (vs militia or state).

    At least one case is in the pipeline, also running here.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  15. #75
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    So you bash my argument and then offer no rebuttal... how exactly does that make you right???
    I apologize sir, I just do not want to argue something that we do not have any control over. I was not rebutting or arguing anything, just pointing out printed, documented, legal facts as it pertains to concealed carry and the states rights to restrict it over the federal governments right to regulate it. So that you may further educate yourself on the subject and come to your own conclusions.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

astoria oregon gun carry regulation
,

concealed carry reciprocity ruling

,
jim brady quotes reciprocity
,
reciprocal gun law before seante
,
reciprocity law senate ruling
,

s.2188 --national right-to-carry reciprocity act

,

s2188 introduced in the us senate

,
senate passes u.s. reciprocity
,

senate right to carry

,
senator brown on reciprical carry law
,

us senate ccw bill 2012

,

us senators in favor of reciprocal carry

,
what is illinous senator kirks stance on concealed carry ?
,
what states have reciprical agreements with mississippi on the right to carry law?
,
when is the national reciprocity being voted on
Click on a term to search for related topics.