Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[pknopp]

True.

As you correctly noted, the question presented in the writ of certiorari was narrowed to make it acceptable to at least four justices and to keep the issue focused solely on the may issue provision of the law.

The original question:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

Was replaced with:

“…whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Op-Ed: Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it's hearing Wednesday?

A rare occurrence on the Supreme Court's docket shows that some of the conservative justices may be searching for middle ground on gun control.

www.latimes.com

The original question could place in Constitutional jeopardy laws that prohibit the open carrying of firearms, such as in Florida.

Which are questions the Supreme Court was created to answer but as is so often the case, they are cowards and won't answer it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Perhaps they should look at what the Founding Father said, and not what the English said.

If Originalists like the Scalia model believe the theory that judges should hold the Constitution to the “public meaning” it had when it was adopted, then they must determine what words meant under British rule, which was all that these men had ever known.

 

[Synthaholic]

Let’s say Second Amendment absolutists are having a bad day – in that it seems as if shall issue concealed carry permitting laws will remain Constitutional.

OK, let's say that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS​

The media doesn’t agree with you

Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun Control Law Is Unlikely to Survive

The law, which imposes strict limits on carrying guns in public, faced a skeptical reception from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

www.nytimes.com

​

 

[frigidweirdo]

If Originalists like the Scalia model believe the theory that judges should hold the Constitution to the “public meaning” it had when it was adopted, then they must determine what words meant under British rule, which was all that these men had ever known.

I disagree. I think there's enough evidence out there about the meaning as it was between 1776 and 1789 to quite clearly see what it meant.

 

[Synthaholic]

The media doesn’t agree with you

The media is no longer fake and elections are no longer rigged, according to conservatives. Hallelujah!

 

[Abatis]

OK, let's say that.

We can say that (predict that) and still say SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it.

I agree, SCOTUS will not hold for a federally enforced right to carry concealed which means setting the rules for the actual manner of carriage will remain in the state's prerogative. (see this post)

Like what was said at oral argument, if the discriminatory policies are invalidated, the restrictive states will no doubt choose concealed carry as the manner of carry . . . So while a "concealed carry right" won't be enforced by SCOTUS by direct decision, it will be a concealed carry win none-the-less, just one that we get by backing in. And that's fine for now.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, just well-regulated militias.

^^^
This is a lie.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nope, just well-regulated militias.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that. What it does say, is "the right of the people". Just like the 1st Amendment says "the right of the people". Its impossible to say those two sentences mean different things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ORLY?





So, we have established you are a liar too.

Yes, we know, anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. At all times.

 

[danielpalos]

Nowhere does the Constitution say that. What it does say, is "the right of the people". Just like the 1st Amendment says "the right of the people". Its impossible to say those two sentences mean different things.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Correct.

The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.

But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.

A concealed carry permit is no different than a poll tax. The court has already ruled that a right cannot be taxed.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The militia is a government sanctioned, funded military force. Be it part time, or full time. But, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It does not say "only militias". That is true. It also doesn't make it clear that it means all people not in militias. Notice all blacks were prohibited. And you can call that unconstitutional, but in reality, it was perfectly constitutional, until amendment and law said it wasn't.

 

[danielpalos]

The militia is a government sanctioned, funded military force. Be it part time, or full time. But, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to do so.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Amendment is not about natural or individual rights.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Amendment is not about natural or individual rights.

The Bill of Rights is absolutely about natural rights. Self defense is a natural right.

 

[danielpalos]

The Bill of Rights is absolutely about natural rights. Self defense is a natural right.

No, it isn't. Context matters and is Every Thing.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Abatis]

Yes, we know, anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. At all times.

No dumbass, you are a liar because you disagree with yourself.

It doesn't bother me if people disagree with me.

See, I frequent multiple message boards looking for debate in the gun topic and I present comprehensive positions and definitive statements; that should indicate I'm expecting, even desiring disagreement.

It does not say "only militias". That is true. It also doesn't make it clear that it means all people not in militias.

Only a person who is unfamiliar with constitutional philosophy, history and law would say that.

Notice all blacks were prohibited. And you can call that unconstitutional, but in reality, it was perfectly constitutional, until amendment and law said it wasn't.

The legal ability of Blacks, either as slaves, Freemen or citizens to own and use guns was never "prohibited" by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never the vehicle or mechanism of discriminatory laws, especially in the South.

The primary legal mechanism the Southern states employed to justify / excuse their racist gun laws, was federal militia law. Only the "free able-bodied white male citizen" of a state was allowed by federal law to enroll in the militia. Southern states used that to advantage, declaring and codifying their state's right to arms to be restricted to only citizens eligible to enroll in the militia. This peculiar legal situation worked to justify their laws forbidding Blacks, first Slaves who were not citizens, then Freemen and then even citizens, to possess and use firearms, and state courts dutifully sustained those laws.

Even after the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state law; it protected no person, Slave or Free, White or Black from any state law codifying (allowing or prohibiting) gun possession and use. Again, the 2nd Amendment could not possibly be the mechanism to enact or facilitate discriminatory law in any state; it only had effect and action on the federal government.

If you are observant and astute you might see the origins of your theory about the 2nd Amendment at work here . . . Your belief that the right to arms is only recognized and secured for militia members, was birthed in the most discriminatory practices and laws this nation ever suffered.

Congratulations!

The racially discriminatory militia dependency theory was eventually killed in the states but it was resurrected in the 20th Century in an equitable, colorblind manner, just extended to anyone who might claim the protections of the 2nd Amendment in the courts of America.

The reconstituted "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, was inserted in the federal court system in 1942 in a lower federal court decision (Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)) written purposefully to ignore and dismiss the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision.

For 66 years the "militia right" from Cases (along with the "state's right" from U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942)) was the lower federal court's determination of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, SCOTUS in Heller reaffirmed the individual right and invalidated Cases and Tot.

The above is a sufficient rudimentary education in the history and law that should instill some curiosity in you about what your indoctrination never covered. Now YOU can disagree and call ME a liar but the above is indisputably the real history, the real law . . .

No doubt you have had a wonderful university education inflicted on you and it seems like you may have learned a little bit about the Constitution. You might have studied civics and government, it's possible you have been instructed in the law. Problem is, the fundamental, inescapable defect in your thinking is everything you know about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment, only extends to what your leftist professor wanted you to know.

I have been debating gun rights vs gun control since 1992, it was more fun back then because the anti-gunner's could actually formulate reasoned, supported arguments. Of course back then they had the lower federal court jurisprudence on their side.

In these 30 years I have learned that lawyers and "well educated" anti-gunners are the most fun to debate. That's because it is usually the case that the best way to paper over stupidity is with expensive degrees. Problem is, here, on an anonymous message board, nobody cares about your claimed education or your race or your gender or anything you use to distinguish or measure yourself IRL . . . Here we are all the same, all that matters are our assembled words and arguments on the screen and the degree they are reasoned and supported.

You should try less juvenile dick flogging and more debating.

 

[Dagosa]

Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.

For sure. Big difference between a city with a million people vs an entire sparsely populated state with a million.

 

[2aguy]

For sure. Big difference between a city with a million people vs an entire sparsely populated state with a million.

Wrong...Rights to not decrease simply because you have more people....

Do you think too many people should limit voting...since it is much harder to count so many votes?

Do you think speech should be limited because too many people have things to say in big cities?