Supreme Court May Decide to Take up Gun Carry Case Tomorrow

[jon_berzerk]

WASHINGTON — Guns are on the docket in Congress and dozens of state legislatures. Can the Supreme Court be far behind?

The court may decide as early as Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home.

The case under consideration is a challenge to New York's law that requires "proper cause" to carry a weapon in public. Ten states, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, have similar restrictions. Most have been challenged in court.

Whether it grants the petition from New York or waits for another case, the court is virtually certain to weigh in soon. That's because lower federal courts have issued split decisions on state laws designed to restrict the prevalence of handguns on the streets.

"It's only a matter of time before the court decides whether people have a right to carry guns in public," says Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "This is the biggest unanswered question about the Second Amendment."

The requests for high-court review come as federal and state lawmakers are considering new gun laws in the wake of December's killing of 26 students and staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The murders by a lone gunman have boosted public support for gun controls.

While 17 states have passed new laws since the Newtown shootings and Congress is considering national legislation, most of the court action is in the other direction — challenges by firearms groups to state restrictions.

The challenges are a natural outgrowth of the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense but left a wide berth for restrictions.

High court may decide on carrying guns outside home

 

[OKTexas]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

 

[Lakhota]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

one would think so

however in this day and age the same court

said it is all good for the government to force folks into buying a product

from a private business

or face penalties

 

[OKTexas]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

Absofuckinglutly!!!!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because criminals will care if the Supreme Court says they can't carry guns outside their home...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about the word 'infringe.' Anything besides a 9-0 vote for gun rights would be an embarrassment. But the court lost all dignity after Obamacare.

 

[Oldguy]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

So..even if the Court were to rule that we have the right to carry a firearm outside the home, that would not preclude restrictions being legislated to control that right for the common good.

In other words, it might turn out to be a pointless ruling.

 

[martybegan]

Even though the Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (Heller and McDonald), it's also made clear that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right which cannot be restrained in any way. In fact, it's said exactly the opposite: gun control short of an absolute ban is Constitutional.

So..even if the Court were to rule that we have the right to carry a firearm outside the home, that would not preclude restrictions being legislated to control that right for the common good.

In other words, it might turn out to be a pointless ruling.

The main issue in the cases is that the ban is arbitrary. So if the police department likes you, you get a carry permit, if it doesnt like you, you dont, and this applies for two people that are 100% similar based on thier criminal/mental history and elegibility to get a permit.

Gun free zones would still be allowable, such as the subway and courts for example.

 

[Mr. H.]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

... or the city of Chicago's "gun-free zone"?

You can enact all the laws you want to, but it comes down to obedience.
Obedience in this country is voluntary. This ain't North Korea.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about the word 'infringe.' Anything besides a 9-0 vote for gun rights would be an embarrassment. But the court lost all dignity after Obamacare.

Well, somehow, I would hope after Newtown, Roberts and Kennedy will join the sane justices on this issue.

Gotta love the gun nutters. They want to have unrestricted guns while the gun industry fights to retain the right to sell guns to the criminal and the insane.

 

[JoeB131]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

... or the city of Chicago's "gun-free zone"?

You can enact all the laws you want to, but it comes down to obedience.
Obedience in this country is voluntary. This ain't North Korea.

Then why are you worried about a law no one is going to follow and everyone will ignore?

 

[jon_berzerk]

that lakhota


she sue is proud of that the NRA 500 incident

--LOL

 

[OriginalShroom]

Criminals don't just attack people in their homes. It happens at red lights, grocery stores, barber shops, beauty shops, garages, even in Church.

The to protect oneself does extend beyond the house. The Courts acknowledged this when they ruled that the "Castle Doctrine" extended to people in their cars.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Criminals don't just attack people in their homes. It happens at red lights, grocery stores, barber shops, beauty shops, garages, even in Church.

The to protect oneself does extend beyond the house. The Courts acknowledged this when they ruled that the "Castle Doctrine" extended to people in their cars.

one would think that to be the case

however nothing wold surprise me

coming out of the SC these days

 

[Mr. H.]

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

... or the city of Chicago's "gun-free zone"?

You can enact all the laws you want to, but it comes down to obedience.
Obedience in this country is voluntary. This ain't North Korea.

Then why are you worried about a law no one is going to follow and everyone will ignore?

I hold a FOID card. That doesn't necessarily mean I own a firearm, but it does put me in a database. I own a FOID because I am complying (obediently) with an existing law.

I do not have a concealed carry permit because Illinois is the ONLY state without such a program (we're "working" on it).

Concealed carry permits are archived in databases, just like FOID cards.

Do the math.

 

[Oldguy]

Nope. Not this term. The Court declined to hear it.

Supreme Court passes on gun rights case - First Read

 

[OriginalShroom]

What a shame.. I wonder which justices denied it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Letting the New York law stand might work itself out without SCOTUS involvement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You would think this one would be a no brainer. If you do indeed have a right of self defense you should have it anywhere you find yourself. But that's the common sense approach and since when do lawyers exhibit common sense?

Really? Even at the NRA 500 "gun-free zone"...?

Please lay out a sound argiument for your right to self-defense being dependant on your location - that is, a sound argument that you can go somewhere and no longer have the right to defend yourself.