Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
"Who are you going to believe, ME or your own lying eyes?" - Frigid Weirdo.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, they found there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. But bear arms isn't carry arms.
Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…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.
Peruta is unique to California however.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.
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.
That's also how it works in California currently.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.
Like I said, Heller clearly states that the States may regulate public carrying anyway they like.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.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.Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
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.
I can live with an annual training requirement which is not pass/fail but only attendance-required for firearms ownership.------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 .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.
Think of the “literacy tests” and “poll taxes” that were once used to restrict voting rights.
CFP's (concealed firearms permits) are harder to get everywhere, but only because there are background checks and usually at least a half day lecture.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.
CCW's are even more hard to get. You have to "show cause", and its up to some NYPD asshat to decide if your causes worthy.
What galls me is police officers and government types get quick or automatic approval to keep a gun in their house, and I have to go through hoops. Why does a cop have more a right to defend himself in his own home than I do?
Like I said, Heller clearly states that the States may regulate public carrying anyway they like.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.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.Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
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.
Heller implies that possession in the home is a right however which cannot be infringed.
CFP's (concealed firearms permits) are harder to get everywhere, but only because there are background checks and usually at least a half day lecture.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.
CCW's are even more hard to get. You have to "show cause", and its up to some NYPD asshat to decide if your causes worthy.
What galls me is police officers and government types get quick or automatic approval to keep a gun in their house, and I have to go through hoops. Why does a cop have more a right to defend himself in his own home than I do?
But making them *impossible* to get seems unfair to me.
However Heller does state that the States have the right to regulate public carrying. I will be surprised if Peruta at the SCOTUS level will overturn this from what the CA-9 said at the Federal level.
Foreign nations' governments have enslaved their own people and completely disarmed them.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.
NYC and NYS are both really fokked up.Like I said, Heller clearly states that the States may regulate public carrying anyway they like.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.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.Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
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.
Heller implies that possession in the home is a right however which cannot be infringed.
it did not say they can do it 'any way they like"
and in NY its not regulating, it's a de facto ban unless you work for the government, or are a friend of someone who gets to decide who is "worthy" to carry a gun around.
How about we make off duty cops follow the same rules we do, and lock up their service piece when they leave the precinct and only keep another gun in the house?
I was at a range in Fort Worth where some IDIOT walked down to his target while the range was hot!Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…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 guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.
Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.
NYC and NYS are both really fokked up.Like I said, Heller clearly states that the States may regulate public carrying anyway they like.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.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.
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.
Heller implies that possession in the home is a right however which cannot be infringed.
it did not say they can do it 'any way they like"
and in NY its not regulating, it's a de facto ban unless you work for the government, or are a friend of someone who gets to decide who is "worthy" to carry a gun around.
How about we make off duty cops follow the same rules we do, and lock up their service piece when they leave the precinct and only keep another gun in the house?
Heller has already set a precedent for them but they are apparently NOT following it in NYC and NYS.
marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.
It won't.
The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.
I was at a range in Fort Worth where some IDIOT walked down to his target while the range was hot!Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…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 guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.
Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.
