Caetano defined self-defense as core to the 2A. Everyone has ignored that aspect, as Caetano related to stun guns.
Not to mention this nugget in Alito's concurring opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!
- Thread starter press1280
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Caetano defined self-defense as core to the 2A. Everyone has ignored that aspect, as Caetano related to stun guns.
Not to mention this nugget in Alito's concurring opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
I doubt that they will mention anything about limitations on locations in this opinion if they keep it narrow.
What Maryland does is another story. Excess distances could be litigated, however unless it was extreme excessive and I doubt SCOTUS intervenes unless the distance is extreme excessive. Which means some states could get away with some excessive distance. This applies to permit costs too. They could get away with $500 probably not with $15,000
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Oklahoma a constitutional carry state allready limits what can be carried loaded openly or concealed. Nothing over 45 caliber.
I see HI, NY, NJ even Maryland specifying how one can carry to some degree. Possibly limiting to nothing higher then 45.
We have another case pending though that addresses open carry specifically. Young v Hawaii. They have held that through at least two conferences and could be holding until they release an opinion on this current case. So we may get OC nationwide soon as well.
I say this because they denied cert on the NJ license case. So if they weren’t considering OC and Hi, I feel they would have allready denied cert to Young. Just a thought.
I appreciate the (good) thoughts.
Sure, I have little doubt states will step in to regulate whatever space SCOTUS leaves vacant. Which is why I am hoping SCOTUS leaves little wiggle room.
I am just worried based on the composition of some of the state legislatures if those legislatures aren’t going to take an F around and find out stance.
I’d like to think they’d approach things in good faith. But they’ve shown that they do not sometimes.
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
So I guess CCW of my WTF Deagle 50AE is out in OK.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
One other thing I would like to mention. While I do believe that the opinion written will be a narrow opinion, because of Justice Gorsuch’s question and comment about scrutiny, I do believe there will be some comment or mention on the use of scrutiny in the upcoming opinion on this case. It is very hard to tell what will be said about scrutiny, and if it will or won’t be to our benefit, but I do believe some comments will be made. I do think it will give some narrow guidelines on its use.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
Whatever limits may be permissible by the eventual ruling by SCOTUS...assuming it's for expanded rights...you can bet the Maryland MGA will walk right up to the limit...take a quick look...rush through public testimony then leap over the limit and dare anyone to file suit against it. It would probably take years to work its way up through the system to maybe being reviewed by a future SCOTUS. In the meantime the MGA would have their way.
I would hope that what emerges is better than the DC standard (where there is licensing and the gun used in carry needs to be registered with them). Clement is specifically going after the requirement of a license (and thus shall issue) to exercise a Constitutional right, and it sounded like some justices agreed that the licensing wasn't something they favored.
Edit: what happens to the HQL if the court says that a license for concealed carry is unconstitutional? Does it affect licences to purchase firearms used for carry?
Edit: what happens to the HQL if the court says that a license for concealed carry is unconstitutional? Does it affect licences to purchase firearms used for carry?
The HQL suit previously failed, and that was after Heller/McDonald. If they make a big issue over permits and the 2A, it would need to be revisited in court.
In MD, you get a complimentary HQL with your permit. Lol.
AliasNeo07
Ultimate Member
I think it's going to be hard to argue that permits are unconstitutional.
Sometimes you need a permit to assemble, protest, or picket.
Some could argue that you need a permit to vote in some states, since you have to go out and get a drivers license or state ID card if you don't have one.
At this point I'll take a ruling that says the 2A obviously confers an individual right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self defense. Shall issue would be nice but I don't think concealed carry is a given.
In the founding era there used to be laws forbidding the concealed carry of weapons in some areas of the country, but open carry was okay. At the time, most people openly carried weapons and the criminal underclass concealed them. So even if we are looking at it through an Originalist mentality, it doesn't necessarily pass constitutional muster. I don't think there is a constitutional right to concealed carry. I think there is a constitutional right to open carry.
And if SCOTUS affirms that, then all states will pass laws allowing concealed carry because they probably don't want people openly carrying guns.
Sometimes you need a permit to assemble, protest, or picket.
Some could argue that you need a permit to vote in some states, since you have to go out and get a drivers license or state ID card if you don't have one.
At this point I'll take a ruling that says the 2A obviously confers an individual right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self defense. Shall issue would be nice but I don't think concealed carry is a given.
In the founding era there used to be laws forbidding the concealed carry of weapons in some areas of the country, but open carry was okay. At the time, most people openly carried weapons and the criminal underclass concealed them. So even if we are looking at it through an Originalist mentality, it doesn't necessarily pass constitutional muster. I don't think there is a constitutional right to concealed carry. I think there is a constitutional right to open carry.
And if SCOTUS affirms that, then all states will pass laws allowing concealed carry because they probably don't want people openly carrying guns.
Pope414
Active Member
I think having a justice die before a ruling was made public has happened ..I think it was the Fisher case when Scalia died and the case was 4-4 and the lower courts ruling stood
PO2012
Active Member
- Oct 24, 2013
- 815
I can't say exactly how SCOTUS will rule but one thing SCOTUS will not be doing is issuing a ruling that says the government has the broad authority to outlaw carrying guns in densely populated areas (i.e. cities).
The Justices may allow a "sensitive place" restriction on concerts, stadiums etc, but there will be no general prohibition on sidewalk carry for the simple fact that such a prohibition would almost completely disenfranchise non-whites and the poor. Putting the Constitution aside, Roberts is obsessed with maintaining the Court's legitimacy. He is not going to sign off on a decision that effectively does to RKBA what Jim Crow did to voting rights, namely creating a regime where black people and legal immigrants can exercise a particular right only in some theoretical universe. Alito touched on the prejudice that helped craft this law when it was first passed. He won't let Roberts ignore it; neither will Thomas.
The Justices may allow a "sensitive place" restriction on concerts, stadiums etc, but there will be no general prohibition on sidewalk carry for the simple fact that such a prohibition would almost completely disenfranchise non-whites and the poor. Putting the Constitution aside, Roberts is obsessed with maintaining the Court's legitimacy. He is not going to sign off on a decision that effectively does to RKBA what Jim Crow did to voting rights, namely creating a regime where black people and legal immigrants can exercise a particular right only in some theoretical universe. Alito touched on the prejudice that helped craft this law when it was first passed. He won't let Roberts ignore it; neither will Thomas.
You need a permit to do something unusual. Assemblies, protests, pickets don’t need permits in all cases. For larger events, it’s reasonable for several reasons including public safety and avoidance of blocking traffic. However, no right requires a permit to exercise in standard and casual form.
Chief Justice Roberts seems to have a problem with it. To wit, "I’m not sure that’s right. I mean, regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in the particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited. But the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights."
I've seen readers/commentators in some mainstream news stories trot out this need of a permit to assemble, protest, etc. These typically are permits given to a group or collection of people, or does each participant need to apply and undergo background checks as well as pay a fee? Typically they're for one time events, right? So would we need to get a license each time we want to go out and carry? Not even the most restrictive states have that standard. That's why I find this comparison to be a weak, post hoc rationalization.
AliasNeo07
Ultimate Member
Let’s hope the courts see it that way!!
They did bring up the 1A.
The only analog would be registering to vote. They may say licensing is okay along those lines.
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
Registering to vote is necessary for the vote itself to be meaningful at all. Which is to say, it's a necessary prerequisite for the exercise to be valid, because the purpose of the exercise is to determine the preferences of the eligible voters. There is no way to determine whether a given voter is eligible to vote save for through some sort of identity check.
This simply cannot be said of carry of arms. The purpose of carry of arms is self-defense and defense of others. That purpose is valid no matter who you are. In fact, that purpose is valid even if you're a prohibited person. The experience of the constitutional carry states proves either that licensing is not necessary to achieve the purpose that the prohibited person restrictions were intended to achieve, or that the purpose behind the prohibited person restrictions is essentially unachievable. In fact, the very fact that criminals routinely carry irrespective of any laws is proof that licensing is essentially worthless for that, and thus constitutes an unjustifiable burden.
In any case, the point here is that voter registration cannot be used as justification for licensing of the right to arms, because their natures are very different.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (1 Viewer)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 13
-
-
-