Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
Well let's see..

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now I'm no lawyer, professor in Constitutional law, or talk show host but I did receive an excellent primary and secondary education where the proper use of English was highly stressed as a part of this education. This sentence makes no mention of how or where arms may be borne by We the People. Therefore, they may be borne in any manner or place were legal* as the People may wish. Now how hard is that for some esteemed court to understand?

* Actually no mention is made regarding the legality of such but several of the Founders did make mention of this later, after the writing of the Bill of Rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,224 Posts
I think this one will be decided favorably. How favorably, I don't known. Chief Justice Squish may only go as far as "may issue," but hopefully the Court goes "shall issue." Or better still, no permit required.
I think the court will rule against may issue.

My prediction is Roberts will rule with the majority so that as Chief Justice he will write the decision himself. That is bad news for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,224 Posts
Or it could go like it did in IL where it forced the State Legislature to come up with a CC Law that met the parameters of the suit before SCOTUS deemed it unconstitutional and permit less.
I can’t comment on which path is best for the good people of NY, but I bet something drastic will change. I’d be hoping the SCOTUS does hear and decide the case before the State makes a concession.
Could be and as with the NYC case recently Roberts would rule this case is moot.

If the state(s) change from may to shall issue the requirements will be so extensive as to make it almost impossible to obtain a license.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
"Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
I'm not wishing for anything. Whichever way it goes, things will move forward. About half the country will approve of their decision while the other half will oppose it. Widespread rioting, looting and violence, or armed insurrection?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Remember when we heard about how things will be different when we get a Republican House/Senate/President? How about when we get one more Supreme Court Justice? Here we go, and Chicken Little is still running the show...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,590 Posts
Man oh man.

Yesterday people were complaining the S. Ct. would not take up a 2A case.

Today people are complaining the S. Ct. took up a 2A case.

This is like trying to keep the spoiled, pretty prom queen happy. Ya can't win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Hopefully this goes well. If this goes south and the court rules that the right to bear arms ends at your doorstep I could see a hand full of states eliminating open/concealed carry entirely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
Man on man.

Yesterday people were complaining the S. Ct. would not take up a 2A case.

Today people are complaining the S. Ct. took up a 2A case.

This is like trying to keep the spoiled, pretty prom queen happy. Ya can't win.
LOL i don't know anything about prom queens, but the rest of it is right. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Could be and as with the NYC case recently Roberts would rule this case is moot.

If the state(s) change from may to shall issue the requirements will be so extensive as to make it almost impossible to obtain a license.
I’d think staying May Issue would not pass constitutionality with SCOTUS, we can always hope.

If the NY Legislature gets ahold it it first, then they’ll place all the restrictions into where and how you can carry. IL had a pretty well represented IL State Rifle Association with a rep from NRA who helped negotiate/battle the terms of the license along with support from Downstate sponsors of the legislation. Printing isn’t illegal in IL and if your not living in Chicago, nobody pays much attention and is well supportive of our right to carry. It wasn’t a bad license out of the gate in many respects compared to other states. It wasn’t perfect, but none of them are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,690 Posts
Even with ACB scotus has been unimpressive. I’ll get excited when they rule correctly on 2a, which will probably be never.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRCarry and P220

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,330 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Hoganbeg

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Yesterday people were complaining the S. Ct. would not take up a 2A case.
Today people are complaining the S. Ct. took up a 2A case.
This is like trying to keep the spoiled, pretty prom queen happy. Ya can't win.
I didn't see where anyone brought this up yet...

The court CHANGED the question presented, in accepting the case... (???)

They changed it in a way that will allow them, potentially, to make a much more narrow ruling, that will be of little value. THAT is why I am skeptical that we will see much from this. If they had granted cert based on the original QP, rather than the one they made up for themselves, I would be excited...

The question as framed by the petitioners:
"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."

The question as rewritten by SCOTUS in their grant of cert:
"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

This sure smells like another John Roberts betrayal, but I will be very happy to be proven wrong...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,590 Posts
I didn't see where anyone brought this up yet...

The court CHANGED the question presented, in accepting the case... (???)

They changed it in a way that will allow them, potentially, to make a much more narrow ruling, that will be of little value. THAT is why I am skeptical that we will see much from this. If they had granted cert based on the original QP, rather than the one they made up for themselves, I would be excited...

The question as framed by the petitioners:
"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."

The question as rewritten by SCOTUS in their grant of cert:
"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

This sure smells like another John Roberts betrayal, but I will be very happy to be proven wrong...
I did see that and like you I wonder if that what it will take to get Roberts and one other on board. But if it comes out to all states become shall issue than I’m okay with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,904 Posts
I didn't see where anyone brought this up yet...

The court CHANGED the question presented, in accepting the case... (???)

They changed it in a way that will allow them, potentially, to make a much more narrow ruling, that will be of little value. THAT is why I am skeptical that we will see much from this. If they had granted cert based on the original QP, rather than the one they made up for themselves, I would be excited...

The question as framed by the petitioners:
"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."

The question as rewritten by SCOTUS in their grant of cert:
"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

This sure smells like another John Roberts betrayal, but I will be very happy to be proven wrong...
Like I said. We live in a world of carefully worded obfuscation from those to whom responsibility has been entrusted. We should use this to our advantage, yet we don't, preferring instead to let it be used against us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,590 Posts
Read Heller: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It's actually an easy read. Scalia was in great form.

Read how he addresses the term "bear." Note also that Roberts is an institutionalist, and that he signed onto the majority in Heller (he must have had bacon an eggs that morning for breakfast).

My betting money is on "shall issue" becoming the law of the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P220
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top