Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public

[Bethere]

The court has never ruled that we have the right to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise. It's obvious that gorsuch's presence won't change that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg

[DGUtley]

..not yet. I was a bit surprised by this decision to turn down review.

[Tahuyaman]

The court has never ruled that we have the right to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise. It's obvious that gorsuch's presence won't change that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg


Gorsuch didn't agree with this decision to not hear the case. We need more constitutionalists on the court.

[resister]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms in their home"

Alt second :rollseyes:

[Chris]

..not yet. I was a bit surprised by this decision to turn down review.

They offer no reason for it, meaning there's little to argue from or about. The dissent does seem to offer a hint of argument:


JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees
that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall
not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that
guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for
self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one
of national importance or that the courts of appeals have
already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari.

@ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf (.PDF)

[Captain Obvious]

Good!

Fuck the nutless bedwetting left who would readily whore out their rights and privileges for a gubmint teet.

Worthless cowards.

[Captain Obvious]

If this ever came to pass then only black thugs would be allowed to carry in public.

[Ethereal]

I actually think it was the right decision. The bill of rights, including the second amendment, was only meant to limit the federal government, not the state and local governments. I'm glad to see Bethere standing up for the principles of federalism and state sovereignty. Well done.

[Common]

I too cheer Bethere for his enlightment on rights.

Having said that Im not a fan of open carry, I feel its unnecessary and it can make others unnecessarily uneasy. Also thinking like a cop Id rather everyone carry concealed so the nutcases carrying guns openly stand out

[texan]

Guns for liberals is like Abortion for conservatives..............Neither are going away better get your head around it!

[Safety]

If this ever came to pass then only black thugs would be allowed to carry in public.

Was that the case with Philando Castile?

[texan]

The court has never ruled that we have the right to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise. It's obvious that gorsuch's presence won't change that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg
All they did is what they are suppose to do and leave it in the states.

[Standing Wolf]

I actually think it was the right decision. The bill of rights, including the second amendment, was only meant to limit the federal government, not the state and local governments.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." So the Second Amendment protection of an individual's right to keep and bear arms cannot be abridged by a state or local government.

[Ethereal]

However, the Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." So the Second Amendment protection of an individual's right to keep and bear arms cannot be abridged by a state or local government.
It's true, the fourteenth amendment does state and imply as much. But the states were coerced into passing it, which renders its legitimacy dubious at best.

[Standing Wolf]

It's true, the fourteenth amendment does state and imply as much. But the states were coerced into passing it, which renders its legitimacy dubious at best.

Be that as it may, you'd have to agree that it's still the law of the land.

[Ethereal]

Be that as it may, you'd have to agree that it's still the law of the land.
Not necessarily. The concept of "law" is largely assumed, but its meaning is open to interpretation. Many seem to treat "law" and "force" as interchangeable with one another, but that interpretation can be problematic for a number of reasons.

[Standing Wolf]

Not necessarily. The concept of "law" is largely assumed, but its meaning is open to interpretation. Many seem to treat "law" and "force" as interchangeable with one another, but that interpretation can be problematic for a number of reasons.

I don't know what you mean by that, to be honest, but I do know what the Constitution says, and I understand how the courts have decided in various matters, and that those decisions do have the force of law. When I hear folks say things like, "Well, maybe it's the law and maybe it isn't" I tend to think about the people who deny that the government has the authority to tax them, and make their own license plates - that sort of thing. Trying to parse legal language with a Webster's instead of a Black's. Not suggesting that you're into that.

[Ethereal]

I don't know what you mean by that, to be honest, but I do know what the Constitution says, and I understand how the courts have decided in various matters, and that those decisions do have the force of law. When I hear folks say things like, "Well, maybe it's the law and maybe it isn't" I tend to think about the people who deny that the government has the authority to tax them, and make their own license plates - that sort of thing. Trying to parse legal language with a Webster's instead of a Black's. Not suggesting that you're into that.

I think you do know, but admitting it has certain disquieting implications about the state of our society and the government.

Because the distinction between positive law and natural law is one firmly established in the canon of American legal tradition. Lest we forget, this country (and the government it created) was based on an armed revolution against the preexisting government authority. Clearly, the founders could not use positive law as a rationalization for their revolution, since officialdom roundly condemned their actions as unlawful, so they had to rely on a higher law, a natural law. I realize that "natural law" may not have any "force" within the narrow context of high-level government circles, but what of the "force" is possesses in the minds of the people and their state governments?

[Standing Wolf]

I think you do know, but admitting it has certain disquieting implications about the state of our society and the government.

Because the distinction between positive law and natural law is one firmly established in the canon of American legal tradition. Lest we forget, this country (and the government it created) was based on an armed revolution against the preexisting government authority. Clearly, the founders could not use positive law as a rationalization for their revolution, since officialdom roundly condemned their actions as unlawful, so they had to rely on a higher law, a natural law. I realize that "natural law" may not have any "force" within the narrow context of high-level government circles, but what of the "force" is possesses in the minds of the people and their state governments?

And that is your basis for questioning the "validity" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

[Dr. Who]

However, the Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." So the Second Amendment protection of an individual's right to keep and bear arms cannot be abridged by a state or local government.

Does that right imply by definition that said right includes open carry? I think the history supports the right to keep and bear arms for political purposes and for protection of private property and self defense, but is the right to open carry implicit?

[Captain Obvious]

Does that right imply by definition that said right includes open carry? I think the history supports the right to keep and bear arms for political purposes and for protection of private property, but is the right to open carry implicit?

Just protection of private property?

I think you've missed a pretty important aspect of carry.

[Dr. Who]

Just protection of private property?

I think you've missed a pretty important aspect of carry.

I edited my post within seconds to include self-defense, but you were too fast to respond!!!

[Captain Obvious]

I edited my post within seconds to include self-defense, but you were too fast to respond!!!

I'm fast like that

;)

[Dr. Who]

I'm fast like that

;)
I always figured you were one of those fast guys. :wink:

[Cletus]

Does that right imply by definition that said right includes open carry? I think the history supports the right to keep and bear arms for political purposes and for protection of private property and self defense, but is the right to open carry implicit?

Can you bear arms without carrying them?

The Second doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be limited to your living room".

[stjames1_53]

Can you bear arms without carrying them?

The Second doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be limited to your living room".

there are some that think Right is the same as privilege..........

[Hoosier8]

This was California's 'conceal carry' ban which is and has been the right of a state and still is. The problem with California is they also ban open carry. The open carry lawsuit is working it's way through the courts and this decision actually could improve it's chances to succeed based on 2A.

[stjames1_53]

This was California's 'conceal carry' ban which is and has been the right of a state and still is. The problem with California is they also ban open carry. The open carry lawsuit is working it's way through the courts and this decision actually could improve it's chances to succeed based on 2A.

Seattle taxed guns ($25.00) and bullets (5 cents on each bullet) and drove taxpaying businesses out of the city limits..........naw, they're not banning guns or ccw or open carry. Like CA, it'll cost you a million dollar bond just to get a maybe on carrying a gun, lawfully.

[Bethere]

Seattle taxed guns ($25.00) and bullets (5 cents on each bullet) and drove taxpaying businesses out of the city limits..........naw, they're not banning guns or ccw or open carry. Like CA, it'll cost you a million dollar bond just to get a maybe on carrying a gun, lawfully.

Excellent.

[Adelaide]

Not a fan of open carry, but don't mind concealed carry, personally. This seems like a good decision, to decline to get involved. The Second Amendment seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

[Standing Wolf]

Does that right imply by definition that said right includes open carry? I think the history supports the right to keep and bear arms for political purposes and for protection of private property and self defense, but is the right to open carry implicit?

While such a right cannot, of course be absolute - there are obviously places and situations in which it would not be appropriate for civilians to be armed - I don't believe that the phrase "to bear" has changed much with time. Doesn't it mean to carry something with you? Should the right to self-protection end when you leave your home?

Having lived in an open carry state for twenty-four years, I guess it just doesn't seem like a really big deal to me. In all that time, I have probably only seen a dozen or fewer civilian individuals actually carrying a firearm openly. Very, very few people appear to feel the need to actually exercise the right; of course their small numbers should in no way invalidate or prevent that exercise. I honestly do not know what hellish, chaotic scene of disorder and bloodshed open carry opponents in California (and elsewhere) envision, but it is contradicted by the reality.

[Bethere]

While such a right cannot, of course be absolute - there are obviously places and situations in which it would not be appropriate for civilians to be armed - I don't believe that the phrase "to bear" has changed much with time. Doesn't it mean to carry something with you? Should the right to self-protection end when you leave your home?

Having lived in an open carry state for twenty-four years, I guess it just doesn't seem like a really big deal to me. In all that time, I have probably only seen a dozen or fewer civilian individuals actually carrying a firearm openly. Very, very few people appear to feel the need to actually exercise the right; of course their small numbers should in no way invalidate or prevent that exercise. I honestly do not know what hellish, chaotic scene of disorder and bloodshed open carry opponents in California (and elsewhere) envision, but it is contradicted by the reality.

What possible reason other than hunting would there be for open carry other than intimidation?

[Chris]

What possible reason other than hunting would there be for open carry other than intimidation?

Protection against intimidation. Protection from the government.

[Standing Wolf]

What possible reason other than hunting would there be for open carry other than intimidation?

I met a guy whose job was repossessing cars, and he open carried. I asked him if he'd ever had to use his pistol, and he held up his left hand and asked how many fingers I counted. Two were missing. Apparently a car owner had a problem with having his vehicle repo'ed, and took a shot at the man even though he was standing there with his hands up. The repo man returned fire - debt retired. Not everybody routinely puts themselves in that kind of danger, but not everyone moves in entirely safe circles - and who knows, these days, if such circles even exist?

[Bethere]

I met a guy whose job was repossessing cars, and he open carried. I asked him if he'd ever had to use his pistol, and he held up his left hand and asked how many fingers I counted. Two were missing. Apparently a car owner had a problem with having his vehicle repo'ed, and took a shot at the man even though he was standing there with his hands up. The repo man returned fire - debt retired. Not everybody routinely puts themselves in that kind of danger, but not everyone moves in entirely safe circles - and who knows, these days, if such circles even exist?

I get that. What of these guys?

18455

After John Crawford was slaughtered by the Beavercreek Police because he was shopping at Walmart, heroes like the guy in the picture came from as far away as Texas just to convince me never again to get within 1000 yards of this particular store. An open carry demonstration in the same store! By white people from WAAAAAY out of town! A street sweeper! In a Walmart?

[Standing Wolf]

I get that. What of these guys?

18455

After John Crawford was slaughtered by the Beavercreek Police because he was shopping at Walmart, heroes like the guy in the picture came from as far away as Texas just to convince me never again to get within 1000 yards of this particular store. An open carry demonstration in the same store! By white people from WAAAAAY out of town! A street sweeper! In a Walmart?

Personally, I see carrying any long gun into a store like that - unless you're out duck-hunting and stop into some country store to buy something - a bit odd, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. So it makes some folks nervous and uncomfortable - lots of things do that. (Where I live a lot of older people go ballistic when they hear Spanish being spoken in a public place, or - God forbid - a "colored person" looms up at them unexpectedly, i.e. turns the corner and walks toward them.) Firearms are a fact of life, and they don't go away because you make people conceal them or leave them at home.

[Cletus]

What possible reason other than hunting would there be for open carry other than intimidation?

What reason do you need to exercise a RIGHT?

[Cletus]

While such a right cannot, of course be absolute - there are obviously places and situations in which it would not be appropriate for civilians to be armed

Other than a courthouse, none really come to mind.

[stjames1_53]

What possible reason other than hunting would there be for open carry other than intimidation?
apparent self-defense...............you have a problem with being able to defend yourself anywhere, anytime. A gun in view sends a message to those who would otherwise assume you are unarmed and proceed with their criminal intent.
If one is *ahem* intimidated by the mere thought of a gun, one should stay inside forever.

[stjames1_53]

What reason do you need to exercise a RIGHT?

I heard it once said that a Right is similar to any muscle group. It must be exercised regularly to remain strong. Don't exercise, lose it

[Cletus]

I heard it once said that a Right is similar to any muscle group. It must be exercised regularly to remain strong. Don't exercise, lose it

I think that is very true.

[Cletus]

I get that. What of these guys?

18455

After John Crawford was slaughtered by the Beavercreek Police because he was shopping at Walmart, heroes like the guy in the picture came from as far away as Texas just to convince me never again to get within 1000 yards of this particular store. An open carry demonstration in the same store! By white people from WAAAAAY out of town! A street sweeper! In a Walmart?

Was anyone harmed?

Why are you so afraid?

[stjames1_53]

Was anyone harmed?

Why are you so afraid?

he's not really afraid, he's a man's man.........he's just jealous, because he's not allowed guns in the house

[Bethere]

Was anyone harmed?

Why are you so afraid?

You and your frustrated party are doomed.

[stjames1_53]

You and your frustrated party are doomed.

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahah...................... ........hahahahahahahahaha


http://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._X4bVveJMnJ3SWroDwunmAD6D6&w=176&h=176&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7

USS Democrat
http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.NUAflSjvmCjxkywozOneswEsDH&pid=15.1

[Cletus]

You and your frustrated party are doomed.

You become more irrelevant on a daily basis.

[Hoosier8]

You and your frustrated party are doomed.

And Hillary was a lock. LOL

[Safety]

I get that. What of these guys?

18455

After John Crawford was slaughtered by the Beavercreek Police because he was shopping at Walmart, heroes like the guy in the picture came from as far away as Texas just to convince me never again to get within 1000 yards of this particular store. An open carry demonstration in the same store! By white people from WAAAAAY out of town! A street sweeper! In a Walmart?

But that was different...

[spunkloaf]

Haha. The right wing sucks bull's testicles.

They can't even keep it together when they have full control of the federal fuck!ng government, and the majority vote of the SCOTUS.

They are failing miserably. There is no hope.

And to that I have just one thing to say.

"Ha ha."

[Chloe]

This country needs a lot of things, but what it doesn't need is more accessibility to guns and more public exposure of guns in my opinion.

[Captain Obvious]

This country needs a lot of things, but what it doesn't need is more accessibility to guns and more public exposure of guns in my opinion.

Like Chicago slums?

I would argue strongly that the most exposure to guns this nation gets on a real-time basis is via the criminal aspect. Law abiding gun owners aren't the ones causing deaths and bodily harm, why persecute them?

[Captain Obvious]

Haha. The right wing sucks bull's testicles.

They can't even keep it together when they have full control of the federal fuck!ng government, and the majority vote of the SCOTUS.

They are failing miserably. There is no hope.

And to that I have just one thing to say.

"Ha ha."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSJXle3LP_Q

[Cletus]

This country needs a lot of things, but what it doesn't need is more accessibility to guns and more public exposure of guns in my opinion.

Opinion noted and dismissed as uninformed.

[Chloe]

Like Chicago slums?

I would argue strongly that the most exposure to guns this nation gets on a real-time basis is via the criminal aspect. Law abiding gun owners aren't the ones causing deaths and bodily harm, why persecute them?
More guns won't fix the problems in the bad parts of Chicago

[Captain Obvious]

More guns won't fix the problems in the bad parts of Chicago

I could care less about the slums of Chicago, they can all shoot themselves ten times over for all I care.

The left, or a fringe segment of it wants to take guns and access to guns away from law abiding citizens - who aren't the ones committing gun crimes. That is what I'm concerned about.

[Bethere]

What reason do you need to exercise a RIGHT?
Open carry is not a recognized constitutional right in the United States. It is seriously open to debate.

[Cannons Front]

What reason do you need to exercise a RIGHT?
No Reason is need to exercise a right!!!!!
Do we need a reason to exercise Freedom Of Speech?
Do we need a reason to exercise Freedom of Religion? Protection from Illegal search? How about any of the other in the bill of rights?

Do we need a reason, if so then they are not a right.

[Cannons Front]

More guns won't fix the problems in the bad parts of Chicago

You are correct, but then again taking guns away from people not doing anything illegal will not fix any of the problems either.......Will it????

[Standing Wolf]

Open carry is not a recognized constitutional right in the United States. It is seriously open to debate.

As are most things. Where the debate stalls and ultimately fails is when people are vilified and insulted because of their position on the issue. Just as we could do with fewer snide jabs about "barrel strokers" and phallic substitutes, we could do with less questioning of folks' manhood because they oppose open or concealed carry, or because they favor some type of "gun control" that we don't.

We can recognize legitimate points that the other guy has without necessarily acquiescing to his conclusion. Guns in public make some people nervous - true. So do cars, burkas, cops and people speaking foreign languages. That something makes some people nervous is not a valid or compelling reason to ban it. That I don't think you "need" to own, wear, display or carry something isn't a valid or compelling reason for me to want to make it unlawful for you to do so.

[Ethereal]

And that is your basis for questioning the "validity" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Well, yes. The natural law is the highest law according to the people who founded this country. It's stated expressly and firmly in the declaration of independence that a government derives its "just powers" from the "consent of the governed". The entire American revolution turned on a rejection of positive laws that ran afoul of the natural law.

[Ethereal]

California should just secede. Then they can make any law they want without having to worry about interference from Republicans. They'll also be freed from paying for the US government's extremely expensive empire and police state, which will free up funding for other things like healthcare and education. Granted, California will still end up bankrupting themselves because Democrat politicians are massively incompetent and greedy, but at least it will be on their own terms.

[stjames1_53]

More guns won't fix the problems in the bad parts of Chicago

but how is taking away MY Rights going to fix things in Chi-town, Gary. Atlanta, LA. Miami, Baltimore, NYC?

[stjames1_53]

I get that. What of these guys?

18455

After John Crawford was slaughtered by the Beavercreek Police because he was shopping at Walmart, heroes like the guy in the picture came from as far away as Texas just to convince me never again to get within 1000 yards of this particular store. An open carry demonstration in the same store! By white people from WAAAAAY out of town! A street sweeper! In a Walmart?

but I'd bet it would be ok if they were black, amirite?

[Standing Wolf]

Well, yes. The natural law is the highest law according to the people who founded this country. It's stated expressly and firmly in the declaration of independence that a government derives its "just powers" from the "consent of the governed". The entire American revolution turned on a rejection of positive laws that ran afoul of the natural law.

Be that as it may, I'm just viewing the question in what I feel are the most practical, real life terms. If a state or local government is attempting to prevent an American citizen from exercising a right that is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, that cannot be allowed to stand. The denial of equal protection under the law is not something that government on any level should be engaging in.

[Chloe]

You are correct, but then again taking guns away from people not doing anything illegal will not fix any of the problems either.......Will it????
Nobody is taking your guns away

[Chloe]

but how is taking away MY Rights going to fix things in Chi-town, Gary. Atlanta, LA. Miami, Baltimore, NYC?

Nobody is taking away your rights

[AeonPax]

`
`
I am a proactive gun owner. NOT, a gun freak....meaning; I'm not a member of the NRA and I believe a civil society should be able to enact restrictions, harsh if necessary, on legally owning a gun.

[Captain Obvious]

Nobody is taking your guns away

You got that right, toots

[Ethereal]

Be that as it may, I'm just viewing the question in what I feel are the most practical, real life terms. If a state or local government is attempting to prevent an American citizen from exercising a right that is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, that cannot be allowed to stand. The denial of equal protection under the law is not something that government on any level should be engaging in.

That was the original intent of the US Constitution and the basic premise of federalism. Localized government should reflect the values and interests of the people who live there, not some far off political bloc. Attempting to universalize a broad set of values and practices is not really "practical" or "real life". It's Utopian and totalitarian. So even though I agree that California's infringement on gun rights are foolish and unwarranted, I see the destruction of federalism under the guise of universal rights even more foolish and unwarranted.

[Ethereal]

Nobody is taking your guns away
Democrats have banned guns on numerous occasions at every level of government.

[Chloe]

Democrats have banned guns on numerous occasions at every level of government.

If that were true you wouldn't be able to buy them

[Ethereal]

If that were true you wouldn't be able to buy them
Well, when I lived in Chicago for two years, I wasn't able to purchase or possess them inside city limits. And when the Democrats passed a federal "assault weapons" ban, I wasn't able to buy that particular class of firearm for years. And in numerous states, Democrats have passed similar bans on "assault" weapons. In the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, they even talked about prohibiting Americans from possessing firearms by dint of a some secretive government "watch list", which is one of the creepiest and most illiberal things I've ever heard. So as much as people like to claim Democrats aren't coming for our guns, their actions indicate precisely otherwise. The fact that we've managed to defeat their agenda more often than not does not mean the agenda does not exist.

[Cletus]

Well, when I lived in Chicago for two years, I wasn't able to purchase or possess them inside city limits. And when the Democrats passed a federal "assault weapons" ban, I wasn't able to buy that particular class of firearm for years. And in numerous states, Democrats have passed similar bans on "assault" weapons. In the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, they even talked about prohibiting Americans from possessing firearms by dint of a some secretive government "watch list", which is one of the creepiest and most illiberal things I've ever heard. So as much as people like to claim Democrats aren't coming for our guns, their actions indicate precisely otherwise. The fact that we've managed to defeat their agenda more often than not does not mean the agenda does not exist.

Spot on.

With court challenges and pressure on legislators, we have been able to thwart most of the goals of the anti-gun Left. Even after suffering defeat after defeat, they continue to try to find ways of depriving Americans of their Second Amendment protections. It remains an ongoing battle.

[Ethereal]

What Democrats want to do is what Europeans have done: Turn gun rights into gun privileges.

People will still be able to buy and possess firearms, but it will be strictly managed and monitored by the state.

Over time, this will give way to the incremental erosion of lawful gun ownership until only a select few within society possess firearms, mostly government agents and well-connected corporate actors, to say nothing of the criminal element who, by definition, do not obey laws.

And make no mistake. The end of gun rights and widespread private gun ownership is what the ruling classes want for Americans. Letting the peasants possess firearms gives them the means to effectively resist tyranny, should the need arise.

[donttread]

The court has never ruled that we have the right to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise. It's obvious that gorsuch's presence won't change that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg



Derliction of duty!

[Hoosier8]

The court has never ruled that we have the right to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise. It's obvious that gorsuch's presence won't change that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg

It is obvious to most the Constitution does.

Uh Oh
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article158965184.html"A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday."
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/article158965184.html#storylink=cpy

[Standing Wolf]

That was the original intent of the US Constitution and the basic premise of federalism. Localized government should reflect the values and interests of the people who live there, not some far off political bloc. Attempting to universalize a broad set of values and practices is not really "practical" or "real life". It's Utopian and totalitarian. So even though I agree that California's infringement on gun rights are foolish and unwarranted, I see the destruction of federalism under the guise of universal rights even more foolish and unwarranted.

Our rights as American citizens should never be subject to the "values and interests" - in other words, the whims and judgments - of the people who happen to live in the same town, country or state that we do. Certainly there are cases and situations where there is no compelling interest on the part of the federal government to interfere with local control - such as most of those that deal with drug policies, assisted suicide, and similar - and yet many other scenarios exist wherein the citizen simply cannot be abandoned to the whims and prejudices of what may very well be an unreasonable, overly controlling or bigoted majority. Citizens whose legal appeals have been defeated in their states' highest courts must have a place to look for justice, and the federal courts fill that need.

[Bethere]

Our rights as American citizens should never be subject to the "values and interests" - in other words, the whims and judgments - of the people who happen to live in the same town, country or state that we do. Certainly there are cases and situations where there is no compelling interest on the part of the federal government to interfere with local control - such as most of those that deal with drug policies, assisted suicide, and similar - and yet many other scenarios exist wherein the citizen simply cannot be abandoned to the whims and prejudices of what may very well be an unreasonable, overly controlling or bigoted majority. Citizens whose legal appeals have been defeated in their states' highest courts must have a place to look for justice, and the federal courts fill that need.

How is it that you and I disagree so strongly on this but neither has stooped to degrading the other?

I know. We are pretty cool. That's why.

Btw. I am a gun owner and I I belong to the nra. I vote. Someday it will matter.

Be good.

[stjames1_53]

How is it that you and I disagree so strongly on this but neither has stooped to degrading the other?

I know. We are pretty cool. That's why.

Btw. I am a gun owner and I I belong to the nra. I vote. Someday it will matter.

Be good.

oh, I get it. You want to be the only one with a gun........gotcha

[stjames1_53]

If that were true you wouldn't be able to buy them

if you had your way, there would be no guns in the hands of the lawful.....

[Bethere]

oh, I get it. You want to be the only one with a gun........gotcha

On the contrary, I would stack my guns up neatly when asked--as will you.

[stjames1_53]

On the contrary, I would stack my guns up neatly when asked--as will you.

really? you seem so sure about that..and you've never met me.
What guns?

[Cletus]

On the contrary, I would stack my guns up neatly when asked...

And kiss the feet of your masters.

[Bethere]

And kiss the feet of your masters.

Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck?

Sure.

[Cletus]

Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck?

Sure.They wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire. I am talking about you real masters, not those of your fantasies.

[Ethereal]

On the contrary, I would stack my guns up neatly when asked...

Perfect example of a slave mentality.


...as will you.

No, we won't.

[Ethereal]

Our rights as American citizens should never be subject to the "values and interests" - in other words, the whims and judgments - of the people who happen to live in the same town, country or state that we do. Certainly there are cases and situations where there is no compelling interest on the part of the federal government to interfere with local control - such as most of those that deal with drug policies, assisted suicide, and similar - and yet many other scenarios exist wherein the citizen simply cannot be abandoned to the whims and prejudices of what may very well be an unreasonable, overly controlling or bigoted majority. Citizens whose legal appeals have been defeated in their states' highest courts must have a place to look for justice, and the federal courts fill that need.

"Values and interests" are not synonymous with "whims" and "prejudices". Often times, they reflect the unique circumstances of a given culture or geography. It makes sense that a densely populated urban area like Chicago would have different gun control policies than a rural county somewhere in the mountains of Virginia. Whereas the latter location could easily accommodate people openly carrying rifles, shotguns, and pistols in public, such a practice could create serious problems on Michigan Avenue where thousands of total strangers walk and drive by every hour. It's simply more sensible to prohibit that practice given the unique conditions that area faces. Granted, such a prohibition does, in its purest form, represent an infringement on a natural right, but because it's localized and democratic, such an infringement is limited in terms of its duration and geographic extent. An individual or individuals who find such a policy intolerable can simply avoid that locale or avail themselves of the democratic processes that decide policy. That is the entire point of having a federal system, to protect and preserve the natural diversity that such a large country engenders.

[Bethere]

They wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire. I am talking about you real masters, not those of your fantasies.

Jimi is dead, but Jeff likes hanging out with your mighty bethere.

[Ethereal]

Jimi is dead, but Jeff likes hanging out with your mighty bethere.
Nobody cares.

[resister]

Jimi is dead, but Jeff likes hanging out with your mighty bethere.
lol, ​master, of delusion

[Dr. Who]

Can you bear arms without carrying them?

The Second doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be limited to your living room".
I did not say that, but open carry is different than concealed carry. Open carry makes people nervous and why is it necessary? Isn't a concealed weapon safer than one that someone can grab? Not everyone is situationally aware, so can't open carry actually make someone a target, minimally for theft of that weapon and in the more extreme, for some stranger with a beef with you to bypass fisticuffs and go straight to weapons drawn?

[Cletus]

Jimi is dead, but Jeff likes hanging out with your mighty bethere.

There is no such animal as a "mighty bethere".

[resister]

There is no such animal as a "mighty bethere".
In liberal la la land with kalkins avatar soaring overhead!

[Bethere]

There is no such animal as a "mighty bethere".

Bicker, bicker, bicker...

(Tell that to Jeff!)

[Cletus]

Get him to post here and let him read what you have written.

You would never see or hear from him again.

[Peter1469]

..not yet. I was a bit surprised by this decision to turn down review.

I am not. The 2nd Amendment is the most misunderstood and most political hot potato of the Constitution.

The Court does try to stay out of political issues for good reason.

[Bethere]

Get him to post here and let him read what you have written.

You would never see or hear from him again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZYRGMwwvfI

[Bethere]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.guns.com/2017/03/03/florida-supreme-court-upholds-state-open-carry-ban/&ved=0ahUKEwjG1_uim-nUAhWR14MKHUrXBfAQFghRMAU&usg=AFQjCNHzjonkb8neIoirak8sNR7-6ccIKg

Florida Supreme Court upholds state open carry ban - Guns.com

[Peter1469]

Good for Florida. Somehow I expect criminals will not comply.

[Bethere]

I did not say that, but open carry is different than concealed carry. Open carry makes people nervous and why is it necessary? Isn't a concealed weapon safer than one that someone can grab? Not everyone is situationally aware, so can't open carry actually make someone a target, minimally for theft of that weapon and in the more extreme, for some stranger with a beef with you to bypass fisticuffs and go straight to weapons drawn?

Yep

[Ransom]

I did not say that, but open carry is different than concealed carry. Open carry makes people nervous and why is it necessary? Isn't a concealed weapon safer than one that someone can grab? Not everyone is situationally aware, so can't open carry actually make someone a target, minimally for theft of that weapon and in the more extreme, for some stranger with a beef with you to bypass fisticuffs and go straight to weapons drawn?
I'll agree with Dr. Who. There is no reason to open carry save hunting areas, perhaps remote areas of the country, I believe if carrying you should try to make every effort to conceal and must have a permit to do so.

[Cletus]

I'll agree with Dr. Who. There is no reason to open carry save hunting areas, perhaps remote areas of the country, I believe if carrying you should try to make every effort to conceal and must have a permit to do so.

I disagree.

I am not a proponent of open carry. I don't like it, but if people wish to do so, they should be allowed to do so.

Since when does someone need a reason to exercise a right?

I also disagree with people having to get permission from the state to exercise a right.

[Standing Wolf]

Aside from some folks' low threshold for "panic mode", I see no earthly reason to ban the open carry of handguns, as long as they are not being brandished. Keep it in your holster, in other words. Long guns are a different story, and I'm not sure that I can pinpoint and explain the difference from either a legal, social or psychological standpoint; it's just that, unless you're out hunting or passing through a part of town where there's a riot going on, having a rifle or shotgun hanging off your shoulder just seems (to me) to be less a matter of self-defense and more a statement of "I'm playing soldier today". I don't mean that to sound derisive toward long gun enthusiasts - it's just that, as we pro-2nd folks are always pointing out, rifles, especially so-called "assault rifles", are used in only the tiniest percentage of crimes; if the rationale for carrying in public is for self-defense and the protection of others, isn't packing a rifle or shotgun when you're out shopping or going to work more than a little bit of overkill?

[Cletus]

I think those who walk around town with long guns are not doing the cause any favors. That said, I don't think it should be prohibited. I just think it is counterproductive.

[Standing Wolf]

I've said before that in the twenty-four years I've lived in an open carry state - one I do get around in quite a bit - I've probably seen fewer than a dozen folks open-carrying...and not a single one of those weapons was a long gun. Most folks don't want to be bothered carrying even a handgun, or see the need to. I suppose it's something that has to be codified, one way or the other, but in the real world it's mostly a self-correcting problem at worst.

[Bethere]

I've said before that in the twenty-four years I've lived in an open carry state - one I do get around in quite a bit - I've probably seen fewer than a dozen folks open-carrying...and not a single one of those weapons was a long gun. Most folks don't want to be bothered carrying even a handgun, or see the need to. I suppose it's something that has to be codified, one way or the other, but in the real world it's mostly a self-correcting problem at worst.

If they marched with ar15s in front of your house would that bother you? Why would they be there? What would their message be? Why might they come from hundreds of miles away to do it? What good could possibly come from it?

[Bethere]

Aside from some folks' low threshold for "panic mode", I see no earthly reason to ban the open carry of handguns, as long as they are not being brandished. Keep it in your holster, in other words. Long guns are a different story, and I'm not sure that I can pinpoint and explain the difference from either a legal, social or psychological standpoint; it's just that, unless you're out hunting or passing through a part of town where there's a riot going on, having a rifle or shotgun hanging off your shoulder just seems (to me) to be less a matter of self-defense and more a statement of "I'm playing soldier today". I don't mean that to sound derisive toward long gun enthusiasts - it's just that, as we pro-2nd folks are always pointing out, rifles, especially so-called "assault rifles", are used in only the tiniest percentage of crimes; if the rationale for carrying in public is for self-defense and the protection of others, isn't packing a rifle or shotgun when you're out shopping or going to work more than a little bit of overkill?
Continued from 106.

You have a right to bare arms. We have a reasonable expectation to be able to pursue happiness. Your pursuit of your right obviously conflicts with my pursuit of my right.

How do we resolve that conflict?
Having guns waved in my face by potential vigilantes and article five nutjobs is in my view intimidation. It ruins my pursuit of said happiness. So many things could go wrong. None of these people are actually law enforcement people from my community. Even if nothing happens the event would traumatize me, my family, and my neighbors.

I'd be willing to discuss the handgun bit. But ifit could be proved that the carrier EVER took that lethal weapon out and waved it around I'd be for that patriot losing his/her second amendment rights. ZERO TOLERANCE.

[Ransom]

Saw a Gentleman sitting in a restaurant one day. Had his gun on his right hip, in a booth, clearly visible to patrons. I took not of the gun and must admit, I looked at it several times, the Gentleman's movements and demeanor seemed to promote, he wanted those in the restaurant to see it was my view on it. The ownership came over to his table, asked him to switch hips for the gun, that some people were getting nervous, the Gentleman politely agreed, then showed the server his badge. But I thought handled well. The officer was a private citizen at the time, ceded right to the owner's wishes regarding carry. Understood. He looked around and I nodded and waved, pointed at my wife to pretend it was her. We spoke after dinner and I told him I was kidding about the wife, he said he totally understood and had no problem with it, agreed he shouldn't have worn it so openly.

I admitted someone with a gun in plain site makes me....wary. Not nervous....just alert.

[Cletus]

Continued from 106.

You have a right to bare arms. We have a reasonable expectation to be able to pursue happiness. Your pursuit of your right obviously conflicts with my pursuit of my right.

How?

Do you think the "pursuit of happiness" as used at the time of the founding of this country means "making you joyful" or some such nonsense?

[Bethere]

How?

Do you think the "pursuit of happiness" as used at the time of the founding of this country means "making you joyful" or some such nonsense?

Thomas Jefferson thought it was an unalienable right.

[Cletus]

Thomas Jefferson thought it was an inalienable right.

Of course it is. You just don't know what it means.

[Bethere]

Of course it is. You just don't know what it means.

Of course I do. Lose the dig and I'd debate it with you.

[Cletus]

Of course I do. Lose the dig and I'd debate it with you.

It is not a dig. It is an observation, and an accurate observation, at that.

If you can't handle adult discussion, go elsewhere.

[Bethere]

It is not a dig. It is an observation, and an accurate observation, at that.

If you can't handle adult discussion, go elsewhere.

It's your loss.

I'll probably keep posting in my thread though. And if you control your attack reflex I'd be happy to interact.

[Hoosier8]

Continued from 106.

You have a right to bare arms. We have a reasonable expectation to be able to pursue happiness. Your pursuit of your right obviously conflicts with my pursuit of my right.

How do we resolve that conflict?
Having guns waved in my face by potential vigilantes and article five nutjobs is in my view intimidation. It ruins my pursuit of said happiness. So many things could go wrong. None of these people are actually law enforcement people from my community. Even if nothing happens the event would traumatize me, my family, and my neighbors.

I'd be willing to discuss the handgun bit. But ifit could be proved that the carrier EVER took that lethal weapon out and waved it around I'd be for that patriot losing his/her second amendment rights. ZERO TOLERANCE.

Evidently you believe you have a 'right' to suppress others rights because that makes you happy. That's not how it works.

[Cletus]

It's your loss.

It would just make room for an honest and thoughtful poster.

[Bethere]

Evidently you believe you have a 'right' to suppress others rights because that makes you happy. That's not how it works.

Not at all. Lots of our rights are in conflict with other people's rights. The courts balance these all of the time.

you have first amendment rights, free speech among them. You, theoretically can say what you please. But you can't yell fire falsely in a theatre. That's because the other patrons have a reasonable expectation of safety.

Frequently, rights in conflict must be balanced.

my point is that a parade of out of state hero patriots armed openly with assault weapons in front of my house would be one of those times.

Thanks for asking nicely.

[Hoosier8]

Not at all. Lots of our rights are in conflict with other people's rights. The courts balance these all of the time.

you have first amendment rights, free speech among them. You, theoretically can say what you please. But you can't yell fire falsely in a theatre. That's because the other patrons have a reasonable expectation of safety.

Frequently, rights in conflict must be balanced.

my point is that a parade of out of state hero patriots armed openly with assault weapons in front of my house would be one of those times.

Thanks for asking nicely.

How so? They don't endanger life or property, two rights that can be violated by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Bethere]

How so? They don't endanger life or property, two rights that can be violated by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

That's a matter of opinion. That's why it would be a court's job to decide the issue.

[Hoosier8]

That's a matter of opinion. That's why it would be a court's job to decide the issue.

Hardly a matter of opinion but a matter of law. You need to outline what rights are violated by open carry.

[Ransom]

I disagree.

I am not a proponent of open carry. I don't like it, but if people wish to do so, they should be allowed to do so.

Since when does someone need a reason to exercise a right?

I also disagree with people having to get permission from the state to exercise a right.

We'll then agree to disagree. Not a problem. Especially the permission part. I do not want felons, under age, or Democrats being able own and carry weapons. Ain't like a good argument can't change my views here, I'm open to disagreement. I mean....I've come to accept giving women driver's licenses. Now......was it a good idea.....I cannot say, however I'm now all about equal rights and I reckon that means we gotta let women drive even if it's at our own peril.

[Bethere]

We'll then agree to disagree. Not a problem. Especially the permission part. I do not want felons, under age, or Democrats being able own and carry weapons. Ain't like a good argument can't change my views here, I'm open to disagreement. I mean....I've come to accept giving women driver's licenses. Now......was it a good idea.....I cannot say, however I'm now all about equal rights and I reckon that means we gotta let women drive even if it's at our own peril.

How do you feel about felons owning weapons like black powder revolvers?

[Cannons Front]

I did not say that, but open carry is different than concealed carry. Open carry makes people nervous and why is it necessary? Isn't a concealed weapon safer than one that someone can grab? Not everyone is situationally aware, so can't open carry actually make someone a target, minimally for theft of that weapon and in the more extreme, for some stranger with a beef with you to bypass fisticuffs and go straight to weapons drawn?
There is a lot of debate between open and concealed carry, I have a CC permit, but am open to either, I carry a full sized pistol so it is never completely concealed. You say open carry makes people nervous, some maybe, but at the same time it depends, If I see a person with a carry holster concealed or open, I think LEO not crazy guy with a gun. Now if I see a guy with a gun tucked in their waistband, I tend to think criminal, but maybe that's just me. Also with Concealed carry, you get the argument, well if they don't know if you are armed criminals will think twice. The other side of that with open carry is if the know you are armed they will not pick you at all. I think if I had to choose someone that I knew had a gun or someone that I thought might have a gun, I would choose the might have.

[Standing Wolf]

If they marched with ar15s in front of your house would that bother you? Why would they be there? What would their message be? Why might they come from hundreds of miles away to do it? What good could possibly come from it?

All good questions to ask, if it ever happens.

[Standing Wolf]

You have a right to bare arms. We have a reasonable expectation to be able to pursue happiness. Your pursuit of your right obviously conflicts with my pursuit of my right.

How do we resolve that conflict?

Here you are reminding me of a poster at the last discussion forum I was a member of - Cletus will remember him - who would frequently counter someone's assertion of their Second Amendment rights with the statement that he had "the right to walk down the street without being shot".

Are you suggesting that because it, presumably, makes you unhappy to see folks in public with firearms in their possession, they should hide those guns to spare your feelings? Honestly, B, I don't think that's at all what the Founders meant when they wrote about "the pursuit of happiness".


Having guns waved in my face by potential vigilantes and article five nutjobs is in my view intimidation. It ruins my pursuit of said happiness. So many things could go wrong. None of these people are actually law enforcement people from my community. Even if nothing happens the event would traumatize me, my family, and my neighbors.

If the guns are literally being waved in your face, that's a serious violation of the law, but I don't think that's what you really meant. When I read that, B, my mind went immediately to those social conservatives who are forever talking about how same-sex couples and gay people generally are always waving their sexual orientation "in people's faces" and "shoving things down our throats". The parallel, with regard to hyperbolic overstatement, is clear.


I'd be willing to discuss the handgun bit. But ifit could be proved that the carrier EVER took that lethal weapon out and waved it around I'd be for that patriot losing his/her second amendment rights. ZERO TOLERANCE.

Depending on the circumstances, brandishing a firearm may be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor. If the former, and the prosecution was successful, then you would likely get your wish.

[Standing Wolf]

Now if I see a guy with a gun tucked in their waistband, I tend to think criminal, but maybe that's just me.

I would think, "Now here is someone who watches entirely too much television". :rollseyes:

[Dr. Who]

There is a lot of debate between open and concealed carry, I have a CC permit, but am open to either, I carry a full sized pistol so it is never completely concealed. You say open carry makes people nervous, some maybe, but at the same time it depends, If I see a person with a carry holster concealed or open, I think LEO not crazy guy with a gun. Now if I see a guy with a gun tucked in their waistband, I tend to think criminal, but maybe that's just me. Also with Concealed carry, you get the argument, well if they don't know if you are armed criminals will think twice. The other side of that with open carry is if the know you are armed they will not pick you at all. I think if I had to choose someone that I knew had a gun or someone that I thought might have a gun, I would choose the might have.

However, given that pickpockets can steal your wallet without you even feeling it, how hard would it be to separate this guy from his gun in a crowded condition:

http://pennlago.com/wp-content/uploads/open-carry-utah1-198x300.jpg

[Cannons Front]

I would think, "Now here is someone who watches entirely too much television". :rollseyes:

Really? You think so? Sorry but you would be wrong, generally speaking most criminals do not carry their guns in holsters, they have them in pockets or just the waistband of their pants. While working with CPD that was nearly the case every time.

[Cannons Front]

However, given that pickpockets can steal your wallet without you even feeling it, how hard would it be to separate this guy from his gun in a crowded condition:
http://pennlago.com/wp-content/uploads/open-carry-utah1-198x300.jpg

Not a good enough picture of the holster but it looks like a lvl 2 holster chances of taking it without his knowledge are slim, the one I use is a lvl 3 holster, your not going to remove it. I have others lvl 1 and 2 depending on where I am going and what I am doing.

Level II is about as effective a holster that is needed. It provides more positive control on the handgun that gravity alone, these are the minimum safe holsters for law enforcement, military, and security personnel

[Cletus]

However, given that pickpockets can steal your wallet without you even feeling it, how hard would it be to separate this guy from his gun in a crowded condition:

http://pennlago.com/wp-content/uploads/open-carry-utah1-198x300.jpg

The photo is a little small, but it looks like he is wearing a Serpa Level 2 holster. The same one I wear. If that is the case, the answer to your question is VERY.

[Cletus]

Not a good enough picture of the holster but it looks like a lvl 2 holster chances of taking it without his knowledge are slim, the one I use is a lvl 3 holster, your not going to remove it. I have others lvl 1 and 2 depending on where I am going and what I am doing.

Level II is about as effective a holster that is needed. It provides more positive control on the handgun that gravity alone, these are the minimum safe holsters for law enforcement, military, and security personnel

I use a level 3 holster for my duty holster. I use Level 2 for my concealment holster. I have a couple of Level 1s, but they are inside the waistband holsters and I only use them if I am carrying a 1911.

[Standing Wolf]

Really? You think so? Sorry but you would be wrong, generally speaking most criminals do not carry their guns in holsters, they have them in pockets or just the waistband of their pants. While working with CPD that was nearly the case every time.

I didn't make my meaning clear - sorry. No, I agree, pockets and waistbands are no doubt the preferred form of carry for criminals. I meant to say that non-criminals, everyday citizens, who do that and think it's a good idea have obviously been influenced by t.v. and the movies, where waistbands are just about the only place anybody carries a gun.

[Cletus]

I didn't make my meaning clear - sorry. No, I agree, pockets and waistbands are no doubt the preferred form of carry for criminals. I meant to say that non-criminals, everyday citizens, who do that and think it's a good idea have obviously been influenced by t.v. and the movies, where waistbands are just about the only place anybody carries a gun.

It is a dangerous practice, but you are right, people do it.

[Cannons Front]

I didn't make my meaning clear - sorry. No, I agree, pockets and waistbands are no doubt the preferred form of carry for criminals. I meant to say that non-criminals, everyday citizens, who do that and think it's a good idea have obviously been influenced by t.v. and the movies, where waistbands are just about the only place anybody carries a gun.

Sorry I misunderstood your meaning.

[Bethere]

Florida Supreme Court: No Second Amendment right to open carry.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/03/florida_supreme_court_no_second_amendment_right_to _open_carry.html&ved=0ahUKEwiQ29CH1O7UAhUmw4MKHT7RA5oQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNGSBLm6zPWuqvTUa0q8-HxpJ45uww

[Captain Obvious]

On to SCOTUS

[Bethere]

On to SCOTUS

Lol!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg

[Captain Obvious]

Lol!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html&ved=0ahUKEwje-6qN89vUAhVBxYMKHYu6CkAQqQIIICgAMAE&usg=AFQjCNHnhn5WrFKDKw2J6GRTqzC9-76Ofg


But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

It will happen

[Bethere]

It will happen

Why?

[donttread]

How do you feel about felons owning weapons like black powder revolvers?

Obviously it depends upon the felony, length of time elapsed and debt served to society. But a felony in general should not be a lifetime ban to gun ownership

[Standing Wolf]

Why?

Because citizens have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves, their families and others outside the home...and because they have brought - and will continue to bring - their cases before the courts.

[stjames1_53]

according to some, once you've paid the price, full Rights should be restored, and I agree. When and if you screw up again, pay the price, twice over.
Not all can handle Rights..................and most take them for granted

[Standing Wolf]

Generally speaking, I see no legitimate state or social interest in restricting the right to firearms ownership if the individual's crime had nothing to do with guns. Well, perhaps in cases of violent, unprovoked assault. Non-violent felonies, however - no.

[Cletus]

Obviously it depends upon the felony, length of time elapsed and debt served to society. But a felony in general should not be a lifetime ban to gun ownership

I agree completely.

[stjames1_53]

Generally speaking, I see no legitimate state or social interest in restricting the right to firearms ownership if the individual's crime had nothing to do with guns. Well, perhaps in cases of violent, unprovoked assault. Non-violent felonies, however - no.
I might be wrong, but in IN you can have a shotgun in the house 5 years after your sentence is completed. It is considered personal/home defense. Get caught with it outside, you're in a pickle. and no pistols at all, not even black powder

[Cletus]

I might be wrong, but in IN you can have a shotgun in the house 5 years after your sentence is completed. It is considered personal/home defense. Get caught with it outside, you're in a pickle. and no pistols at all, not even black powder

And what of your spouse? Or your adult children? Or any other adult in the household?

That law would never hold up to a court challenge.

[Bethere]

Because citizens have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves, their families and others outside the home...and because they have brought - and will continue to bring - their cases before the courts.
And yet last week they blew off a golden opportunity to do just that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/03/florida_supreme_court_no_second_amendment_right_to _open_carry.html&ved=0ahUKEwiQ29CH1O7UAhUmw4MKHT7RA5oQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNGSBLm6zPWuqvTUa0q8-HxpJ45uww

Your explanation?

[Standing Wolf]

And yet last week they blew off a golden opportunity to do just that.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/03/florida_supreme_court_no_second_amendment_right_to _open_carry.html&ved=0ahUKEwiQ29CH1O7UAhUmw4MKHT7RA5oQFggmMAI&usg=AFQjCNGSBLm6zPWuqvTUa0q8-HxpJ45uww

Your explanation?

How about, "Judges sometimes get it wrong"?


From there, the court easily concluded that the law passed constitutional muster. The state’s “interest ensuring public safety by reducing firearm-related crime,” the court wrote, is “undoubtedly critically important.” And the open carry ban “substantially relates” to this purpose because it helps to prevent “deranged persons and criminals” from grabbing an openly carried firearm and using it for malign purposes.

This assumes that a firearm is unique in its innate potential for lethal misuse, and seeks to impose on its open possession a standard that would be both impractical and unacceptable if applied to any other object. I understand that firearms opponents don't like car analogies, but which scenario would likely result in more serious injuries and fatalities - a deranged person or criminal snatching someone's gun and firing it randomly in a public place, or a deranged person or criminal carjacking a two-ton vehicle and driving it at high speed into a crowd? It all comes down to the - in this case - false distinction between things thought of as being too useful and ubiquitous to practically ban, and things that "people don't really need". A visible firearm, it seems to me, is likely to prevent a lot more criminality than it provokes.

[Captain Obvious]

Why?

It's beyond your comprehension

[stjames1_53]

And what of your spouse? Or your adult children? Or any other adult in the household?

That law would never hold up to a court challenge.
Domestic battery charges and convictions are a lifetime ban, enforced by the Fed Gov. However, most police are exempt from this law

[Bethere]

Generally speaking, I see no legitimate state or social interest in restricting the right to firearms ownership if the individual's crime had nothing to do with guns. Well, perhaps in cases of violent, unprovoked assault. Non-violent felonies, however - no.

If we have established that ex felons should be allowed to own guns, then should they be allowed to vote?

[Cletus]

If we have established that ex felons should be allowed to own guns, then should they be allowed to vote?

When a felon has completed his sentence, all rights should be restored.

[Bethere]

When a felon has completed his sentence, all rights should be restored.

Republicans disagree. Why, therefore, are you a Republican?

[Cannons Front]

If we have established that ex felons should be allowed to own guns, then should they be allowed to vote?
As for guns, unless the crime used a gun or was a violent crime, I would have no issue with them regaining that right. I would say as long as they have served their punishment voting would be ok with me too.
I believe that many on this country feel that ExCons are just waiting on their next victim, and with some that may be true, but overall I think that if given a chance at a new life many could become solid citizens again.

[Cletus]

Republicans disagree. Why, therefore, are you a Republican?

Making assumptions is one of the reasons you are wrong so often.

[Bethere]

Making assumptions is one of the reasons you are wrong so often.

I made no assumptions. I know that's supposed to be a great comeback according to rush Limbaugh, but I need to make an assumption first for it to work.

lol.

[resister]

Generally speaking, I see no legitimate state or social interest in restricting the right to firearms ownership if the individual's crime had nothing to do with guns. Well, perhaps in cases of violent, unprovoked assault. Non-violent felonies, however - no.
It is a form of backdoor gun control. How many non violent felons that never abused their gun rights have been barred?

[Captain Obvious]

Making assumptions is one of the reasons you are wrong so often.

Forum bottom feeders need material to troll so they project.

Members of opposition who have character wont pull this crap.

[Cletus]

I made no assumptions. I know that's supposed to be a great comeback according to rush Limbaugh, but I need to make an assumption first for it to work.

lol.

Of course you made assumptions... both incorrect.

You assumed I am a Republican.

You assumed that all Republicans disagree with the idea of restoration of rights for felons who have paid their "debt to society".

[Bethere]

Of course you made assumptions... both incorrect.

You assumed I am a Republican.

You assumed that all Republicans disagree with the idea of restoration of rights for felons who have paid their "debt to society".

The gop platform opposes restoring voting rights for felons.

[resister]

The gop platform opposes restoring voting rights for felons.
link?

[Cletus]

The Second Amendment part of the platform starts on page 19. There is no mention of opposing restoring 2A rights to felons.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-republican-platform-full-text_us_578bce03e4b03fc3ee513eb9)

[Standing Wolf]

If we have established that ex felons should be allowed to own guns, then should they be allowed to vote?

Unless someone can make a convincing case as to how voting relates to any particular criminal conviction, let alone to felony convictions generally, I'd have to say yes.

[Bethere]

Unless someone can make a convincing case as to how voting relates to any particular criminal conviction, let alone to felony convictions generally, I'd have to say yes.

I agree, the gop disagrees.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/turning-back-clock-florida

[Cletus]

My feeling on the issue is simple. If a convicted felon completes the sentence imposed on him in a court of law, when it is done, he has paid whatever debt he owes society and should be restored to full citizenship with all the rights and privileges of any other citizen. There should be no "Well, he might do it again" thinking involved.

If he does it again, punish him again. If you restrict his rights because he did something in the past, for which he has paid the price, or because he might do something in the future, that is effectively a life sentence. He may not be in prison any more, but he is still being punished.

[Bethere]

My feeling on the issue is simple. If a convicted felon completes the sentence imposed on him in a court of law, when it is done, he has paid whatever debt he owes society and should be restored to full citizenship with all the rights and privileges of any other citizen. There should be no "Well, he might do it again" thinking involved.

If he does it again, punish him again. If you restrict his rights because he did something in the past, for which he has paid the price, or because he might do something in the future, that is effectively a life sentence. He may not be in prison any more, but he is still being punished.

My view is even if he/she is on death row he/she should be allowed to vote.

[Cletus]

My view is even if he/she is on death row he/she should be allowed to vote.

I don't really care what your view is.

[Bethere]

I don't really care what your view is.

Posting in my thread is a peculiar way of demonstrating that!

[Cletus]

Posting in my thread is a peculiar way of demonstrating that!

It is not your thread. You started the thread, but once it was posted, it belonged to the forum. Once you did that, you served your purpose and became superfluous.

[Captain Obvious]

It is not your thread. You started the thread, but once it was posted, it belonged to the forum. Once you did that, you served your purpose and became superfluous.

You're harshing his mellow place.

[Cletus]

I agree, the gop disagrees.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/turning-back-clock-florida

There is nothing in the link that says that is a GOP position.

[Bethere]

There is nothing in the link that says that is a GOP position.

Obviously, it is.

[Cletus]

Obviously, it is.

You have presented no evidence to indicate that.

It is apparently just another one of your assumptions.

[Bethere]

You have presented no evidence to indicate that.

It is apparently just another one of your assumptions.

Did you bother to read the article?

[Cletus]

Did you bother to read the RNC platform?

I did.

[Bethere]

Did you bother to read the RNC platform?

I did.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/20/politics/donald-trump-african-american-voters-virginia-voting-rights/index.html

"But in the same speech here, (Trump) slammed an order by the state's Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, to restore voting rights to some convicted felons who have completed their sentences, a move McAuliffe says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginias-mcauliffe-to-announce-restoration-of-voting-rights-to-13000-felons/2016/08/20/590b43ee-6652-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html) could help African-Americans who were disproportionally affected by laws that put lifetime bans on felons."

[stjames1_53]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/20/politics/donald-trump-african-american-voters-virginia-voting-rights/index.html

"But in the same speech here, (Trump) slammed an order by the state's Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, to restore voting rights to some convicted felons who have completed their sentences, a move McAuliffe says (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginias-mcauliffe-to-announce-restoration-of-voting-rights-to-13000-felons/2016/08/20/590b43ee-6652-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html) could help African-Americans who were disproportionally affected by laws that put lifetime bans on felons."

first off, Trump does not dictate laws or policy in W VA, unless it is a federal matter. If you don't want to lose your Rights, don't be a felon, especially in W VA.

[Cannons Front]

Did you bother to read the article?

The article says it is in Florida's Constitution "The Florida constitution denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a felony conviction, unless he is granted clemency by the governor."

How exactly does that make it a Republican issue?

[stjames1_53]

The article says it is in Florida's Constitution "The Florida constitution denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a felony conviction, unless he is granted clemency by the governor."

How exactly does that make it a Republican issue?
isn't Florida a democratic stronghold?

[Cannons Front]

isn't Florida a democratic stronghold?

Not as much anymore, but in the past it was, 33 of the 43 Governors have been Democrats 8 have been Republican, 1 Whig and 1 Prohibitionist. At one point they went 110 years with only 1 Republican Governor, so that is a pretty blue history....

[Bethere]

Not as much anymore, but in the past it was, 33 of the 43 Governors have been Democrats 8 have been Republican, 1 Whig and 1 Prohibitionist. At one point they went 110 years with only 1 Republican Governor, so that is a pretty blue history....

It was a gop gov at the time. Everyone else is irrelevant.

[Cannons Front]

It was a gop gov at the time. Everyone else is irrelevant.

You realize that the Governor is not who amends or adopts Constitutions? Right? Also if you are placing Blame on the Governors office, do any of the 5 Democrat Governors since then share that blame?

[Bethere]

You realize that the Governor is not who amends or adopts Constitutions? Right? Also if you are placing Blame on the Governors office, do any of the 5 Democrat Governors since then share that blame?

Struggle, struggle, struggle.

You are out of time. The Master must move on.

[stjames1_53]

You realize that the Governor is not who amends or adopts Constitutions? Right? Also if you are placing Blame on the Governors office, do any of the 5 Democrat Governors since then share that blame?
gauging the reply you got, he ran from the Field of Truth

[Bethere]

gauging the reply you got, he ran from the Field of Truth

And yet I'm still here.