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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now there's a flip flop! The libs always rail about how anyone who supports the BoR's and the constitution wants to go back to the 18th century or there abouts. I can't recall what they call this, but it starts with a H.

George Orwell called it “doublethink”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Awww, look how the regressive gas bag wants illegals to vote. Isn't that cute?

The new requirements didn't prevent more than a dozen illegals from voting, and meanwhile stopped thousands of legal voters in the process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[yiostheoy]

So now this thread has gone way off track and is just talking about general gun sh!t.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

 

[bodecea]

That would be fun.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Accidents happen with trained kids. Never point a gun at a person. That doesn't require a class.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

 

[Brain357]

Pretty well trained I would guess.
CCW instructor gets 5 days in jail for accidental shooting death of gun shop owner

 

[yiostheoy]

Here is a list of my general rules for survival on this sh!t hole we call Earth in the 21st Century anno Domini.

1 - You cannot trust anyone besides yourself.

2 - Sometimes you cannot even trust yourself so you need to be extra careful even when you are alone.

3 - The population of the Earth includes about 10% mentally ill persons and 1% criminals and 1/10th% psychopaths and sociopaths.

4 - There is nobody else on this Earth who can protect you from crime so you need to protect yourself.

5 - Everyone capable of drawing and shooting a gun accurately needs to carry or wear on their person a gun at all times everywhere they go in order to fight against crime.

6 - Anyone not capable of drawing and shooting a gun accurately needs to be accompanied by someone else at all times who can.

7 - You should sleep with your gun under your pillow too in case of a burglary or assault at night while you are sleeping.

8 - It is best to have a dog living with you who can alert you to trouble.

9 - You need to be constantly vigilant with total situational awareness at all times everywhere.

10 - You need to avoid high crime areas.

11 - You need to constantly observe unusually dressed or oddly acting persons, keep your distance from them, and leave the area if necessary.

12 - You should not let anyone get within arms reach of you.

13 - You need to protect your gun just like it protects you.

14 - It will take you slightly longer to draw from concealment than from open carry.

15 - If someone around you is open carrying then you need to switch from concealed carry to open carry otherwise that person has the advantage in drawing his/her gun.

16 - If you know someone has a gun (such as in open carry) you should keep them under constant observation and locate yourself behind them so they cannot see you.

17 - You need to be wary of groups of people assembled or operating together.

18 - It is much easier and more beneficial to leave a questionable situation than to stay there and press your luck.

19 - You need continuous firearms training and practice because all skills diminish without practice.

20 - You should practice at least monthly with your primary self defense gun.

21 - You should ideally practice at least weekly with your gun.

22 - When you can draw from concealment in less than 1 second and shoot and hit your target from 1 to 25 yards away then you are good, just like me !!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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."

 

[yiostheoy]

JakeStarkey this is not funny; I am trying to help you save your azz.

Brain357 you need to get an avatar you lazy pig.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

*****Mod Edit - Do NOT change a member's name in the quote box and do NOT change the quote in a way that it will change the meaning.*****

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Even so, there is no reasonable presumption that any particular driver is going to carelessly or maliciously ram his car into a crowd of people. We don't assume that someone is going commit a crime until he actually commits a crime, or at least credibly expresses an intent to do so. Innocent until proven guilty. We doDn't get to deprive anyone even of that privilege just on the basis of preduming that he might abuse it in a criminal manner. So surely, there is no justification for denying anyone's essential Constitutional rights on that basis.

 

[miketx]

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."

Just say it, you are all for the gun free murder zones. Why do you hate children?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.