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

[miketx]

If registration leads to confiscation, I'm all for registering democrats immediately.

 

[2aguy]

But not without proving they are "one of the people".

Hence the 14th amendment.

Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.

People should be registered to vote and own guns, yes.

Nope......registration of guns leads to confiscation...we know this because it has already happened around the world....

Are guns registered by sale in the USA? Have they been confiscated?

Registering guns has only one reason..to later use those lists to confiscate the guns once the anti gunners have the political power to do it.

 

[miketx]

I'm pretty old and have needed open heart surgery. Why waste time sending doctors to school on it? It's stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy admits that gun registration in America has not led to confiscation, even when the Dems had the government from 2006 to 2010.

Your NRA masters who pay you are not getting good product from you.

 

[2aguy]

By definition, one does not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. If one requires a license or a permit to do something, then that makes it, not a right, but a privilege, with government having the authority to grant or deny that privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege. It speaks of a right, belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing that right. To allow government the power to treat it as a privilege, and usurp the power to grant or deny it by way of licensing, is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution.

If you do not like that, then try to get an amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment. As it is, yours is a position of outright corruption and lawlessness.

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy admits that gun registration in America has not led to confiscation, even when the Dems had the government from 2006 to 2010.

Your NRA masters who pay you are not getting good product from you.

Nope.....gun registration in New York under the safe act is now forcing people to get rid of their lawfully owned AR-15s and other rifles...this has also been done in other states.....

obama put judges in place to ban guns....the 4th Circuit just did this with their latest ruling that military weapons are not covered by the 2nd Amendment......he needed votes for his agenda and didn't want to lose democrats to votes on gun control..that is why he used judges.....

And the clintons planned on using federal law suits against gun makers to do the same thing...

 

[2aguy]

2aguy admits that gun registration in America has not led to confiscation, even when the Dems had the government from 2006 to 2010.

Your NRA masters who pay you are not getting good product from you.

Registration led to confiscation in Germany, Britain, Australia......so no...registration is not Constitutional...and on top of that..there is no point....it does not stop crime or solve crime...the only reason.....the only reason, to register guns is to have a list ready for when they have the political power to confiscate them...just like New York...

 

[miketx]

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

Imbeciles always say, concerning rights, that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Well, You sure as hell can! And, if there is NOT a fire, you will be held accountable. We don't have a bunch of scumbag nazis standing at the door saying yeah, he looks like he might yell fire, get him. Screw dims.

 

[2aguy]

I'm pretty old and have never needed a gun. Why would we waste time in school?

Maybe to save a couple dozen lives every year?

Several years ago a few streets away from me, a 14 year old girl was killed. It was an accident by a 13 year old boy who somehow got his hands on a gun. He had no idea that a round could be in the chamber even though the magazine was not attached to the gun. He pointed at her and pulled the trigger just fooling around.

Telling kids not to touch guns doesn't really need to be a class.

Yeah...it does....and it can be done in school alongside or in addition to fire safety training...

 

[2aguy]

I'm pretty old and have never needed a gun. Why would we waste time in school?

Maybe to save a couple dozen lives every year?

Several years ago a few streets away from me, a 14 year old girl was killed. It was an accident by a 13 year old boy who somehow got his hands on a gun. He had no idea that a round could be in the chamber even though the magazine was not attached to the gun. He pointed at her and pulled the trigger just fooling around.

Telling kids not to touch guns doesn't really need to be a class.

And telling kids not to touch guns would stop a problem like that? Do you really think that kids are that Fn stupid that they don't already know they are not supposed to touch guns?

Point is that if there were firearms training for youngsters, that kid would have known a gun can still go off without a magazine. A 14 year old girl would now be 19 years old and enjoying the life that was taken away from her.

brain is a troll.......

 

[2aguy]

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.

You need to read Heller, Scalia wrote: "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

Yeah....so?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

Yes, but the difference is nobody is hurt or killed if somebody in your list above abuses those things. If you get a goof with a gun and he shoots you, it could cost you your life, your ability to work, or even a limb.

It's one of the reasons we have drivers training and licensing instead of just letting anybody drive a car. You have to demonstrate you have the responsibility and ability to drive before you get your drivers license. Why? Because you are going to be on that road with other people that you can bring harm to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And 2aguy's yelling has resulted in nothing. Guns are not being rounded up. He believes that civilians should have guns categorized as "weapons of war." SCOTUS will rule otherwise.

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

The Constitution makes Federal Law the supreme law of the land. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

Big Government TK: Ok.

No the Constitution is not big government, in fact its filled with thing the Government can not do like infringe on your right to bear arms.

Please understand that Scalia in "Heller" defined "bear" as use them in a militia activity.

"Keep" means keep them in your home.

"Bear" means use them in the capacity of an infantry action.

That's how he defined them.

And he reserves the power of regulation in public to the states.

No...it isn't. Where in the world did you get that?

 

[miketx]

I'm pretty old and have never needed a gun. Why would we waste time in school?

Maybe to save a couple dozen lives every year?

Several years ago a few streets away from me, a 14 year old girl was killed. It was an accident by a 13 year old boy who somehow got his hands on a gun. He had no idea that a round could be in the chamber even though the magazine was not attached to the gun. He pointed at her and pulled the trigger just fooling around.

Telling kids not to touch guns doesn't really need to be a class.

And telling kids not to touch guns would stop a problem like that? Do you really think that kids are that Fn stupid that they don't already know they are not supposed to touch guns?

Point is that if there were firearms training for youngsters, that kid would have known a gun can still go off without a magazine. A 14 year old girl would now be 19 years old and enjoying the life that was taken away from her.

brain is a troll.......

Troll with no brain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

2aguy admits that gun registration in America has not led to confiscation, even when the Dems had the government from 2006 to 2010.

Your NRA masters who pay you are not getting good product from you.

Let me ask: Do you think that if the Dems had control, and a majority in the Supreme Court, that they wouldn't try to confiscate guns?

The only thing that has stopped them (and continue to stop them) is the Supreme Court who determined we do have gun rights.

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

The Constitution makes Federal Law the supreme law of the land. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

Big Government TK: Ok.

No the Constitution is not big government, in fact its filled with thing the Government can not do like infringe on your right to bear arms.

Please understand that Scalia in "Heller" defined "bear" as use them in a militia activity.

"Keep" means keep them in your home.

"Bear" means use them in the capacity of an infantry action.

That's how he defined them.

And he reserves the power of regulation in public to the states.

From Heller...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
--------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

----------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”


------------

That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

-------

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

------------
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training
----
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

----

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution
-------------
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”

----------

B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the B Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the


---------

1. Post-ratification Commentary Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 33 Opinion of the Court the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

--------




c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[2aguy]

And 2aguy's yelling has resulted in nothing. Guns are not being rounded up. He believes that civilians should have guns categorized as "weapons of war." SCOTUS will rule otherwise.

what weapons of war, genius...since those are the very weapons the 2nd was created to protect.

 

[2aguy]

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.

They are not almost identical, and I have explained why. In the case of only one of those rights can illegal abuse of that right by one or more persons violate that righr for others.

And people don't abuse guns?

As I stated earlier, I don't want everybody to have a gun--especially walking around with one. There are people that are not trustworthy with a gun, and that could bring harm to me, my family or my friends. If somebody abuses their right to vote, it may only hurt my candidate, but at least I'm alive and not injured.

As far as constitutionality goes, you either believe rights have regulations or you don't. You can't say that one right should have regulation and the other one not.

We already have laws and regulations for guns...if you are caught misusing a gun, that Right can be taken from you. But prior restraint is wrong.....you don't require people to take training in order to post on the internet, become a reporter or write a book.......or to get permission from the government before they can do those things.....if they commit libel or slander...they can be dealt with.....but not before.

Yes, but the difference is nobody is hurt or killed if somebody in your list above abuses those things. If you get a goof with a gun and he shoots you, it could cost you your life, your ability to work, or even a limb.

It's one of the reasons we have drivers training and licensing instead of just letting anybody drive a car. You have to demonstrate you have the responsibility and ability to drive before you get your drivers license. Why? Because you are going to be on that road with other people that you can bring harm to.

And how do you keep the government from creating standards of training so extreme, so expensive and so time consuming that only the rich and politically connected can pass them? Making the Right nonexistent? This is what they do in Europe to keep people from owning the few types of shotgun they allow for hunting....it has become the privelege of the wealthy......

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy will argue that "weapons of war" means those of 1789. OK, he can have a musket. I am sure SCOTUS will agree to that. Send me NRA's contact info: I can do a far better job than you.