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

[Brain357]

Massad Ayoob from/in NJ believes it is a privilege not a right to carry a gun in public.

I tend to agree with him on that.

The privilege requires some level of training.

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

They just threw in well regulated militia to make it confusing?

 

[yiostheoy]

A moron is normally so stupid they don't even have any idea how stupid they are.

 

[miketx]

Massad Ayoob from/in NJ believes it is a privilege not a right to carry a gun in public.

I tend to agree with him on that.

The privilege requires some level of training.

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

They just threw in well regulated militia to make it confusing?

Who are the militia?

 

[miketx]

One of the main problems of reading the U.S. Constitution today is that in the 2 1/4 centuries that have passed since it was draw-up, the American English language has changed.

So the first thing any Constitutional jurist needs to do is ascertain what the words meant back then.

Lots of armchair quarterbacks forget that.

This is why Scalia's write-up of Heller is so valuable -- it is the most recent decipherment of the 2nd Amendment available.

If you want to be intelligently informed about the 2nd Amendment you need to carefully read and study Heller.

Most people are too lazy to do that yet not smart enough to keep their mouths shut in the meantime.

If you study language used during that period, even a moron can see what the meaning of the words meant.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Massad Ayoob from/in NJ believes it is a privilege not a right to carry a gun in public.

I tend to agree with him on that.

The privilege requires some level of training.

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

And I think you are a moron.

So like other moron's you are getting really close to ending up on my iggy list.

Not sure you will be able to grow a brain fast enough in the meantime.

 

[Brain357]

Massad Ayoob from/in NJ believes it is a privilege not a right to carry a gun in public.

I tend to agree with him on that.

The privilege requires some level of training.

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

He's wrong, and so are you. The Second Amendment explicitly identifies it as a right, not a privilege; and forbids government from infringing it.

I don't agree with you.

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

They just threw in well regulated militia to make it confusing?

Who are the militia?

They would defend country. With a standing army they are no longer needed.

 

[miketx]

The militia is not any standing Army.

 

[Brain357]

The militia is not any standing Army.

Correct. We have a standing army so no militia is needed.

 

[miketx]

The militia is not any standing Army.

Correct. We have a standing army so no militia is needed.

The people are the militia and no lie you repeat time after time will have any effect on that.

 

[miketx]

Gas bag thinks the people are funny.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[yiostheoy]

Bob Blaylock graduates to my iggy list.

It is a list of morons.

Once someone gets onto my iggy it is very hard for them to get off it.

I let everyone off it for Lent but most of those morons ended right back on it in a very short time.

 

[yiostheoy]

Kids should not have access to firearms without adult supervision.

It's too bad when that happens.

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

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

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

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

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

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

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

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

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

At 12 I started hanging out with neighbors who had 22LR rifles and we hunted rabbits and squirrels together which the mom's of the neighborhood would cook for us.

It was not until college and at the frat house that I got a good intro to powerful handguns. Our oldest frat brother Evan was working towards his Ph.D. in teaching. He was 30. He had several different kinds of handguns and he would take us shooting. Nice guy.

I settled on a 9x19 ultimately back then and carried one version or other of this caliber for decades until I finally moved up to a 45ACP.

The advantage of the 9x19 is more bullets (cartridges) in the gun (pistol).

The advantage of the 45ACP is more stopping power.

 

[JBond]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

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

 

[Bassman007]

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.

Yea right, Jake Starkey with a magnum.......................might fucking happen

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

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

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

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

 

[Brain357]

Kids should not have access to firearms without adult supervision.

It's too bad when that happens.

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

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

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

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

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

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

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

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

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

So have you ever used one in defense?

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

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

 

[Brain357]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

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

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

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

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

 

[JBond]

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

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

By being responsible so kids don't get them.

And also by educating them on firearm safety.

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

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

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

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

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

So have you ever used one in defense?

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

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

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

 

[JBond]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

I have several concerns about this:

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license. The way it is now, there is a strict background check, and you have to pass a written test followed by a range test to make sure you know how to handle a firearm.

Next is asking if this would do any good? Being able to legally use a gun is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. In my state of Ohio, the laws are written to give us much liberty if using deadly force; the state is supports the victim. But even if I could use my license in places like New York or California, I would be scared to use my firearm unless I knew it was either that, or face certain death. Even if totally legal, the state is still against armed citizens and can write the laws so you just about can't use your gun for self-defense without paying some kind of penalty including prison. States like those are liberal, so they are for the criminal and against the victims.

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

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

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

Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

Posting meaningless crap is a poor debate tactic.

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