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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Kids should not have access to firearms without adult supervision.

It's too bad when that happens.

If a gun is not strapped to your person it should be in a gun safe locked up. So everyone with more than 1 gun needs a gun safe too.

I understand, but life is life. Nothing is perfect. Everybody knows you shouldn't drink and drive, yet we have hundreds of Americans killed every year because people get Fd up and feel they can still handle a car.

You're never going to stop gun accidents, but you could prevent some of them.

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

 

[yiostheoy]

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

It amazes me how Brits, Canucks, Auzzies, and American wimps advocate surrendering.

But it pisses me off when they try and force it on others.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand, but life is life. Nothing is perfect. Everybody knows you shouldn't drink and drive, yet we have hundreds of Americans killed every year because people get Fd up and feel they can still handle a car.

You're never going to stop gun accidents, but you could prevent some of them.

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

So have you ever used one in defense?

I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.

I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand, but life is life. Nothing is perfect. Everybody knows you shouldn't drink and drive, yet we have hundreds of Americans killed every year because people get Fd up and feel they can still handle a car.

You're never going to stop gun accidents, but you could prevent some of them.

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

 

[yiostheoy]

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

A small dog is the best solution at night, in addition to your gun.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

Depends on what you mean by "work".

What the gun bans accomplish is turning the citizenry into slaves.

Gun crimes goes down yes, but they never disappear.

Overall crime does not change at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

Depends on what you mean by "work".

What the gun bans accomplish is turning the citizenry into slaves.

Gun crimes goes down yes, but they never disappear.

Overall crime does not change at all.

By work I mean that there was no reduction in gun assaults and murders since before the ban. It's the same thing we experienced here with our assault weapons ban. No data to support that it changed anything.

Gun crimes would increase with a gun ban because criminals are not going to give up their guns no matter what the law is. It would only disarm their victims which makes it more appealing to rob and kill people.

And yes, gun deaths and in particular, violent deaths have gone down since the early 90's. While there is nothing to support the cause, it's proportional with the amount of states that adopted CCW laws.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

Depends on what you mean by "work".

What the gun bans accomplish is turning the citizenry into slaves.

Gun crimes goes down yes, but they never disappear.

Overall crime does not change at all.

By work I mean that there was no reduction in gun assaults and murders since before the ban. It's the same thing we experienced here with our assault weapons ban. No data to support that it changed anything.

Gun crimes would increase with a gun ban because criminals are not going to give up their guns no matter what the law is. It would only disarm their victims which makes it more appealing to rob and kill people.

And yes, gun deaths and in particular, violent deaths have gone down since the early 90's. While there is nothing to support the cause, it's proportional with the amount of states that adopted CCW laws.

Auzzieland has data that show their gun crimes did go down, but knife crimes went up to make up for it. Take away the weapon and the crimes continue with other weapons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

It amazes me how Brits, Canucks, Auzzies, and American wimps advocate surrendering.

But it pisses me off when they try and force it on others.

Good for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

Depends on what you mean by "work".

What the gun bans accomplish is turning the citizenry into slaves.

Gun crimes goes down yes, but they never disappear.

Overall crime does not change at all.

By work I mean that there was no reduction in gun assaults and murders since before the ban. It's the same thing we experienced here with our assault weapons ban. No data to support that it changed anything.

Gun crimes would increase with a gun ban because criminals are not going to give up their guns no matter what the law is. It would only disarm their victims which makes it more appealing to rob and kill people.

And yes, gun deaths and in particular, violent deaths have gone down since the early 90's. While there is nothing to support the cause, it's proportional with the amount of states that adopted CCW laws.

Auzzieland has data that show their gun crimes did go down, but knife crimes went up to make up for it. Take away the weapon and the crimes continue with other weapons.

No, what they show is a decrease in gun crime from it's peak after the ban. Looking at the chart, you can see gun crimes are about where they were at before the ban:

 

[JBond]

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.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

I believe you and a few other leftist wackados need to educate yourselves regarding the rate of ownership vs homicides and get back to us afterwards. Hint: there is comprehensive study on the topic, complete with pictures even the dumbest liberal will comprehend.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says

But the rate of violence in other countries has also fallen. It's based on there being better entertainment at home, so less people are likely to be hanging out on the streets getting up to no good.

I believe you and a few other leftist wackados need to educate yourselves regarding the rate of ownership vs homicides and get back to us afterwards. Hint: there is comprehensive study on the topic, complete with pictures even the dumbest liberal will comprehend.

In our state a business is allowed to restrict guns from their place of business by placing a sign on the door. I don't patron those places because I am less safe. Years after we started our CCW program, most places don't even have that sign on the door except for companies. But stores and places that serve the public took them all down.

 

[Brain357]

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

So have you ever used one in defense?

I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.

I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.

So if you or your family is attacked by a group of violent people you feel safer without a gun. Good for you. Don't buy a gun. What is your plan to disarm criminals and guarantee the safety of law abiding citizens?

Where do you live? That doesn't happen here to the law abiding. Maybe if you are involved in crime...

 

[Brain357]

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.

We have Constitutional Carry in Kansas. The libs predicted the return of the Wild West (or at least their fictitious version of what they think the Wild West was). Salon published a long, poorly researched article on the topic. It never happened.

Oh yea, same thing here, especially when they incorporated our Castle Doctrine for CCW holders in their car. They predicted massive road rage murders. Never happened.

Recently, they passed a law that allows us to carry guns where alcohol is sold. Of course you can't drink while carrying, but the libs predicted gun fights like the old west used to have when people had too much to drink. Never happened.

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

So? Here is the main point of your story:

CBS News correspondent Jerika Duncan asked, “Is there a connection between concealed-carry permits and the amount of road rage shooting incidents?”

“We don’t have decades’ worth of data here, [but] the data that we do have suggests that that might be happening,” Burnett replied.

It "might" be happening? You mean they don't know if somebody has a CCW or not when they arrest them?

Sounds to me like he was trying to avoid the question.

Seemed appropriate since you said that wasn't happening.

 

[Brain357]

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

So have you ever used one in defense?

I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.

I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.

Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?

If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.

You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.

 

[Brain357]

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.

It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........

I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.

During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.

You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.

And that makes you safe in your home? No, it doesn't. It might give you the feeling of security, but you can still be robbed, and you're more likely to be killed.

Sure, you can still be robbed if you are sleeping or something, but let me tell you that if somebody starts breaking down my door, I'll have one in the chamber before they get in, and yes, that makes me safer. In fact, the idea that I might have a gun in my home makes me safer.

No, that just makes it more likely the criminal will be armed making you less safe.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have a slight problem with the title of this thread.

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

Our right to keep and bear arms is not something that is "given" to us - not even by the Constitution itself.

The right to keep and bear arms is hundreds of years older than our country and our Constitution. Ask yourself where the founding fathers got THEIR right to keep and bear arms - when they took up arms against King George. The Constitution hadn't even been contemplated at that point.

Anyway, that's my observation.

Carry on!