Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Supreme Court will hear case on carry outside the home.


Recommended Posts

I posted this in TeamSASS but since nobody reads that forum thought I would give people a heads up here. Supreme court has agreed to hear a NY case about concealed carry and carry outside the home. Several states like NY have may issue concealed carry laws that they use to deny millions their right to keep and bear arms. In NY you are legally prohibited from carrying openly for self defense so concealed carry is the only legal option, however the state routinely denies carry permits to individuals unless they can "prove" they really really have a special need to carry (read they are government officials or well connected and rich). Just carrying for self defense in general is not considered a valid reason, thus millions are denied their RKBA. Although only a few (several) states have such may issue laws they include many of the most populous states accounting for almost a fourth of the US population. 

 

https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-hear-gun-carry-case/

Edited by Raylan
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it does say “keep and bear arms”. Bearing arms means carrying arms. Am I wrong??

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every article I have read an about this uses the phrase,  "to expand gun rights. "  Where allowed to comment I've been saying,  "The proper phrasing is "to remove restrictions on constitutionally protected civil rights, "  don't let the left  distort the meaning. "

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cautiously optimistic, this is one of the big ones, right to carry outside the home. The other is so call assault weapon bans (banning some semi-auto firearms cause we call them evil scary assault weapons) and magazine bans (limiting firearm capacity to an arbitrary number of rounds). Of course the ones that won't be removed and should be is the entire NFA - full auto, silencers, and short barreled rifles along with caliber restrctions. 

Would be very happy if they go to carry outside the home is a right, can't ban made up catergories of firearms, can't limit magazines/firearms to an arbitrary number or rounds.

 

This would be huge, most urban dwellers in several states making up a quarter of the US population have no use for and thus no experience with firearms and thus are the backbone of the gun control misinformation and propaganda movement. Those urban dwellers don't hunt as a practical matter as they live in cities or suburbs, and current laws prohibit them from having or using a firearm for practical self defense.

 

Overturn the bans such as in NY and CA and suddenly they can own a firearm and actually use it by carrying it for self defense. Then they have a right they can legally exercise, have property and money in the game, and gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms becomes something they care about. Additionally once they become gun owners and carry a firearm for self defense they gain experience shooting guns and talking to and experiencing the gun culture and they often take the next step to bans of "assualt weapons" and magazine bans are stupid and wrong. 

Thus this could open the door to potentially millions of new RKBA advocates. 

Edited by Raylan
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Well it does say “keep and bear arms”. Bearing arms means carrying arms. Am I wrong??

According to the 9th Circuit, as long is it isn't open carry (not protected by a prior decision) and as long as it is not concealed carry (not protected by recent decision), it must still be legal to bear arms as the right is not infringed by either decision (according to each of the decisions).

 

Glad SCOTUS is hearing at least one case, but this was an opportunity to hear about a half dozen at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Well it does say “keep and bear arms”. Bearing arms means carrying arms. Am I wrong??

They'll probably claim that refers to hunting too, an early taxidermy law.

Bear_arms.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

Sometimes you are better off not to rock the boat.

 

LL

Some have speculated that this is why SCOTUS hasn't taken up some of the previous cases, that they were waiting for a firm 5-4 majority vote even with Roberts taking the opposite side.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

If gun rights "are expanded" the hue and cry to pack the court will be deafening.

 

1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

This is 100% guaranteed to put the liberals' attempts to stack the court on the front burner.

They probably don't have the votes.  The most important thing to a politician is keeping their position and there are going to be enough Democrats in the House that are in purple districts.  Many of those already face a difficult reelection and voting to pack SCOTUS is not going to help their chances of getting elected again.

 

As for the Senate, at least three Senators have gone on the record as against adding more justices to SCOTUS, both Senators from AZ and Manchin from WV.    I'm guessing there are at least a couple of more Senators (Testor (D) Montana & King (I) ME) that are probably against it as well and both of them are reasonably pro gun.

Edited by Chantry
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

This a case they punted when NYC altered its ordinance to avoid SCOTUS review. 

No, that was a different case about transporting a firearm. This is about may issue vs shall issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am optimistic as they usually won’t take a case just to affirm a lower courts ruling.  That means there should be some sort of reversal.   The media is already screaming how this will make “us” less safe.  There is plenty of data that says allowing concealed carry has no negative effects on crime rates and can even reduce violent crime.   Fingers crossed on this. 

Edited by Still hand Bill
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chantry said:

 

They probably don't have the votes.  The most important thing to a politician is keeping their position and there are going to be enough Democrats in the House that are in purple districts.  Many of those already face a difficult reelection and voting to pack SCOTUS is not going to help their chances of getting elected again.

 

As for the Senate, at least three Senators have gone on the record as against adding more justices to SCOTUS, both Senators from AZ and Manchin from WV.    I'm guessing there are at least a couple of more Senators (Testor (D) Montana & King (I) ME) that are probably against it as well and both of them are reasonably pro gun.

That is not terribly reassurring since the GOP has Murkowshy, Collins and Romney.  HR1, the fillibuster, D.C. Statehood and gun rights are all going to be nail biters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Murkowshy, Collins and Romney aren't going anywhere on the filibuster, even some Democrats oppose getting rid of it (it takes power from the senate). D.C. Statehood is a sopp thrown by the House Democrats that is a dead letter in the senate, besides all its other legal issues. HR1 could be passed by reconciliation and maybe one of the Rinos might go with it, but I doubt it. Also Manchin a Democrat has been loudy opposed to using reconcilation to pass HR1 and well as being opposed to getting rid of the filibuster. If any of the three, Murkowshy, Collins, or Romney goes to support packing the court they would be dead in their Senate primaries, and again some democrats including Manchin have come out against court packing. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best possible outcome would be if turncoat Roberts votes to uphold the Constitution and makes it a 6-3 decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Cautiously optimistic, ..." me too , i believe in our constitution , just hope others with a say do as well , 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raylan said:

I posted this in TeamSASS but since nobody reads that forum thought I would give people a heads up here...

 

That is a problem. All gun owners and especially those who purport to like/love/respect our freedoms, most specifically what the 2A restricts the government from, should be fully aware of what this administration is doing and wants to do to gut and eviserate the Peoples' rights. If gun owners lose rights and freedoms, we all lose rights and freedoms. Information is critical. Team SASS is full of timely and pertinent information. Gun owners need not live with blinders on nor their heads buried in the proverbial sand.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

That is not terribly reassurring since the GOP has Murkowshy, Collins and Romney.  HR1, the fillibuster, D.C. Statehood and gun rights are all going to be nail biters.

Murkowsky & Romney live in very pro-gun states and Maine is fairly pro-gun as well, not a fan of the three of them, but as I always state "A politician's first priority is to keep their elected position" and with a Democrat in the White House and no Republican majority in the Senate, I suspect they will be much less likely to cast votes that will cause them trouble in their respective states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

This is 100% guaranteed to put the liberals' attempts to stack the court on the front burner.

Likely.  And it needs to be met with the same end as it did in 1937.  

Edited by Ozark Shark
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Every article I have read an about this uses the phrase,  "to expand gun rights. "  Where allowed to comment I've been saying,  "The proper phrasing is "to remove restrictions on constitutionally protected civil rights, "  don't let the left  distort the meaning. "

The Left has their own lexicon.  It uses common English words but they mean something different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

The Left has their own lexicon.  It uses common English words but they mean something different.

 

Unfortunately we then use their definitions in the discussion rather than forcing them to use the correct definitions. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

This is 100% guaranteed to put the liberals' attempts to stack the court on the front burner.

it's on the front burner, the only question is if they can do it.  they are flexing every muscle they have to try to lock in extra states, senators and court members so they never loose another election again.  they are playing for keeps, only question is if we'll let them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Unfortunately we then use their definitions in the discussion rather than forcing them to use the correct definitions. 

They have an advantage in that their massive propaganda arm has usurped control of most major news rooms.  On many subjects, their lexicon has replaced the proper terminology.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Still hand Bill said:

I am optimistic as they usually won’t take a case just to affirm a lower courts ruling.  That means there should be some sort of reversal.

SCOTUS generally considers cases where different districts rule in opposite directions.

 

For instance, the 9th ruled there is no right to concealed carry in one case, and ruled there is no right to open carry in another case. Therefore saying there is no right to carry.

 

In contrast, the 7th ruled a total ban on bearing was not constitutional.

 

SCOTUS will now resolve the controversy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...this should turn out GREAT for gun owners given the marvelously consistent conservative right-leaning decisions they have been making over hte last few years

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022 said:

This will give Roberts another opportunity to vote wrong

 

I'm sure he'll rule that denying a citizen's rights is a simple tax. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

For instance, the 9th ruled there is no right to concealed carry in one case, and ruled there is no right to open carry in another case. Therefore saying there is no right to carry.

 

Unfortunately, the 9th too often bases its rulings on the backwards idea that somehow the State and the Constitution GIVE rights to the citizen.  The reality is that the Constitution, in theory anyway, cedes some carefully circumscribed powers to the government and provides protection the the citizen from the government.  The Constitution is silent on just how one may "bear arms."  To me that means it is up to the citizen to determine how he or she wishes to "bear arms."  

Three of my favorite quotes:


 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”  Wm. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

This one I found on a FB group without attribution to any author:

The Second Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The Second Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant

The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm.  The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Unfortunately we then use their definitions in the discussion rather than forcing them to use the correct definitions. 

i will second this - its time to stop using "their terms" to define our discussions , they do not control the language or its use , just another way to control us and i for one am not inclined to be controlled or have my language restricted by anyone 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.