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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

 

[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 would doubt this. As much as they might want to make this something, they'd find it hard to justify such a thing.

Not only that, if they agree, they'll have to turn back on their Heller case, where they basically said the 2A does NOT grant a right to carry guns around, as they upheld Presser, which specifically said so.

Would one member of the court change everything so much? No, doubtful.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

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.

 

[pismoe]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------- keep government out of it . All that will happen is that training will become expensive with gov mandated rules and hoops and possibility of failure imposed by government employees . Government mandated training for motorcyclists is a good example of gov mandated training Mike .

 

[Rustic]

Watch Gorsuch vote to eliminate the right.

I'd be more worried about back-stabbing Roberts.

Roberts works for Obama… Fact

 

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

But it's not, you see.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's pretty clear here

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Or, "render military service".

Nothing about carry arms.

Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.

 

[JoeMoma]

I believe that we have the right to carry concealed weapons per the 2nd Amendment. I highly doubt the supreme court will agree with me. I suspect that the supreme court will affirm the state's ability to put restrictions on the right to bear arms such as the requirement for CWPs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

That's all right, Ray. Read Heller.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Correct, to us, as in the people. In the states is just where we happen to live. Doesn't apply to an American in...China.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------- keep government out of it . All that will happen is that training will become expensive with gov mandated rules and hoops and possibility of failure imposed by government employees . Government mandated training for motorcyclists is a good example of gov mandated training Mike .

Think of the “literacy tests” and “poll taxes” that were once used to restrict voting rights.

 

[miketx]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------- keep government out of it . All that will happen is that training will become expensive with gov mandated rules and hoops and possibility of failure imposed by government employees . Government mandated training for motorcyclists is a good example of gov mandated training Mike .

Think of the “literacy tests” and “poll taxes” that were once used to restrict voting rights.

Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.

 

[miketx]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------- keep government out of it . All that will happen is that training will become expensive with gov mandated rules and hoops and possibility of failure imposed by government employees . Government mandated training for motorcyclists is a good example of gov mandated training Mike .

Good thinking! However, nowhere did I mention government.

 

[pismoe]

ANY mandated training is unacceptable as far as i am concerned Mike !!

 

[martybegan]

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.

Meaningless statement. Heller affirmed that States can restrict felons and mentally adjudicated people from owning firearms, it didn't say NYC can infringe to the degree it is doing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia..

No, it is not the 'right' to be in a militia, lol, and no one argues that any more other than anti-gun loons and Marxists.

At the time the Tenth Amendment prevented the Feds from saying much of anything on gun rights and laws as all that was left to the individual states to deal with themselves.

The result was a patchwork of different laws in one state as opposed to another until the matter became a political football and the NRA decided to promote gun rights as exceptionally protected.

A good comparison to the way the right to own and bear guns and how it was dealt with would be to look at the laws on 'brass knuckles' which are different in every state.

The word 'infringed' has many slightly different meanings. It could mean 'ignored' as when there is copyright infringement when a business ignores someones copy right and makes the item regardless. It could mean violated or encroached upon.

The latter definition of encroached seems the more restrictive on the government, but even that allows for regulation. Our right being limited to people with the capability and responsibility to use guns is not an encroachment, as I understand it, because the full scope of use is still there in potential. That one has to get a certification or training is a more recent idea that does not prevent the person from exercising their right, but enhances it by insuring that they have sufficient knowledge on how to handle it.

Even if the Second Amendment did mean that every crook and mental deviant should be allowed to carry a gun, does anyone think that the Founding Fathers intended that to be the case? Most states disallowed criminals from carrying guns, and it was argued that since they could not be part of the militia they therefore had no such right. Other rights have long been regulated or limited by law, such as free speech being limited by the observation that no one has the right to cause panic or spread known lies about a person. We have a right to free religion, but surely not to join a cult that wants to murder all of humanity, etc, as the FF were hostile to non Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion in the US, largely.

All l aw abiding citizens have the right to own and bear arms, though it may be reasonably regulated and what that means exactly will take another decade or two to define in case law.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Wrong. When it comes to felons they have been given due process via jury of their peers. And the right to own arms is only one of many rights they can lose due to being convicted of a crime. The right to vote, the right to free movement, the right to 4th amendment protections under certain conditions (parole searches).

Licensing is prior restraint, especially licensing in NYC for example, where they make you wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees just for a freaking home handgun permit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

But it's not, you see.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's pretty clear here

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Or, "render military service".

Nothing about carry arms.

Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.

I have no idea what religion has to do with this, but the court did rule against Washington's gun ban. They found that yes, individual rights to possess and carry firearms is Constitutionally protected. State restrictions? Yes, they can apply restrictions, but not to the point of total disarmament of most citizens. They kept their rights to restrict guns from kids and criminals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Perhaps but most likely not

It's a states right issue

It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.

But it's not, you see.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's pretty clear here

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Or, "render military service".

Nothing about carry arms.

Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.

I have no idea what religion has to do with this, but the court did rule against Washington's gun ban. They found that yes, individual rights to possess and carry firearms is Constitutionally protected. State restrictions? Yes, they can apply restrictions, but not to the point of total disarmament of most citizens. They kept their rights to restrict guns from kids and criminals.

No, they found there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. But bear arms isn't carry arms.

In Heller they said:

"(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."

Okay, so, carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. So having said this a few years back, are they going to change under the same court? Doubtful.

The fact that carry and conceal permits are legal, shows that there is no right to carry arms.

In fact, what they did there was quite cunning.

They said "a right to keep and carry any weapon", but it's used in the negative. At no time did they say there was a right to carry, however they mentioned the two of them together, but in a negative. "It is not a right to.... carry any weapon....", no, it's not, because it's not a right to carry at all.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

This part is actually eve worse on that. The first is that the 2A protects an individual right to possess a firearm, ie, own a weapon. The second part is "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", they're basically saying you have the right to use your weapon LAWFULLY. Which is therefore not a right at all.

Self defense "within the home" is not "carry arms".

So, in the whole thing they sort of pandered to the "Second Amendment crowd", by hinting at things, but never actually going out and saying them. It's basically keeping people on their side by being mischievous, but never actually saying what the people they're pandering to think they're actually saying. Quite clever really, immoral, but clever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Wrong. When it comes to felons they have been given due process via jury of their peers. And the right to own arms is only one of many rights they can lose due to being convicted of a crime. The right to vote, the right to free movement, the right to 4th amendment protections under certain conditions (parole searches).

Licensing is prior restraint, especially licensing in NYC for example, where they make you wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees just for a freaking home handgun permit.

Then what is "too" restrictive? I guess that would have to be decided by the courts if challenged.

I don't know if you ever seen the episode of John Stossel trying to get a license in NYC, but it was pretty good. He went through months of red tape and money to get a CCW permit, and after all that, they denied him the license.