Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

AsianTrumpSupporter

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2017
4,264
1,127
The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...


This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.
 
The libs own the Seattle region here but there aren't enough of them to change our state constitution, which reads like the US constitution so it's a shall issue state. But I would like a national backup plan in case they go full retard on us.
 
The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...


This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.
 
The right (that means government can't take it away) of the people (that's us in the states) to keep and bear (that means own/possess and carry) arms (as in firearms) shall not be infringed (crystal clear there)

Sounds right.
 
Watch Gorsuch vote to eliminate the right.

If he is the originalist and textualist he is reported to be, doubtful. "Keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" are quite broad.

So is “…the right of the people…”.

“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is pretty devastating to any argument that the Second Amendment does not affirm and protect an individual right, which every free citizen has, and which government is forbidden from infringing.
 
First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license.

Then work to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns the Second Amendment and gives power to the government to violate the people's right to keep and bear arms. Until that is done, the Second Amendment, as written, stands as part of the highest law in this nation.
 
Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

No, it isn't. As a citizen of the United States I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Hopefully the next lawsuit will get rid of the infringement NYC does by making a person wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees for a freaking home use revolver permit.
 
The right (that means government can't take it away) of the people (that's us in the states) to keep and bear (that means own/possess and carry) arms (as in firearms) shall not be infringed (crystal clear there)

Sounds right.

It's a states right issue

Nothing to do with the states. The right belongs to the people, not to the states, and most certainly not to the federal government. Compare with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people. The Second Amendment is explicit about to whom the right which it affirms belongs.
 
Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue
No, it isn't. As a citizen of the United States I have a right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully the next lawsuit will get rid of the infringement NYC does by making a person wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees for a freaking home use revolver permit.
You and bob be sure and email your opinion to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Heller was quite clear in affirming the states had the right to enact legislation within the purview of the constitution.
 
Since firearms are no longer the same kind of tool they were at the beginning of this country, people have been stupidified so much about guns by the media, and those people who know nothing about guns, I think some form of training to carry would be a good idea. I don't propose to know how it would work or whatever, but lots of people have never fired a gun. Once a year at the prison we had firearms training. There was one armed post at the prison and that was the mobile unit that drove around the prison 24 7. It was always filled by the most crippled up old person they had.

It was the scariest day of the year as there was always several people who had NEVER even held a gun. The gun was a S&W .38 special, and we had several that could not hit the standard DPS target at 7 yards. What was even more scary was that there was talk of going to semi autos. God the horror.

So some proficiency is a good idea.

Don't even ask about the mobil patrol officer that obliterated the roof of the vehicle they were driving with the shotgun.
 
Since firearms are no longer the same kind of tool they were at the beginning of this country, people have been stupidified so much about guns by the media, and those people who know nothing about guns, I think some form of training to carry would be a good idea. I don't propose to know how it would work or whatever, but lots of people have never fired a gun. Once a year at the prison we had firearms training. There was one armed post at the prison and that was the mobile unit that drove around the prison 24 7. It was always filled by the most crippled up old person they had.

It was the scariest day of the year as there was always several people who had NEVER even held a gun. The gun was a S&W .38 special, and we had several that could not hit the standard DPS target at 7 yards. What was even more scary was that there was talk of going to semi autos. God the horror.

So some proficiency is a good idea.

Don't even ask about the mobil patrol officer that obliterated the roof of the vehicle they were driving with the shotgun.
Good post. The same emotional turmoil occurred every time we conducted grenade training.
 
First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license.

Then work to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns the Second Amendment and gives power to the government to violate the people's right to keep and bear arms. Until that is done, the Second Amendment, as written, stands as part of the highest law in this nation.

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.

I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.
 
Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue
No, it isn't. As a citizen of the United States I have a right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully the next lawsuit will get rid of the infringement NYC does by making a person wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees for a freaking home use revolver permit.
You and bob be sure and email your opinion to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Heller was quite clear in affirming the states had the right to enact legislation within the purview of the constitution.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear. “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”
 

Forum List

Back
Top