Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 24th, 2021, 04:12 PM #1
Glaron's Avatar
Glaron Glaron is offline
Re-Education Gulag 13R
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,094
Glaron Glaron is offline
Re-Education Gulag 13R
Glaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,094
9th Circuit just ruled that there is “no right” to carry a firearm

https://www.newswars.com/breaking-ni...-or-concealed/

Quote:
BREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public.

This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.

This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this.
In an appalling lack of knowledge on Constitution 9th Circus violates 2nd amendment....

God Help Us.
__________________
Private property is bad. I relish my Government 8x10 Condo.(Free!)

If masks can't stop a fart smell? They wont stop a virus.
What else did they get wrong? Fear of living is not life.
Glaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2021, 04:19 PM #2
Qbeam's Avatar
Qbeam Qbeam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,444
Qbeam Qbeam is offline
Senior Member
Qbeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,444
So the term "bear" doesn't mean carry, like "bear the burden" (carry the burden).....


I guess legislate from the bench is alive and well.


Q
Qbeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2021, 04:24 PM #3
HokieKev HokieKev is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 962
HokieKev HokieKev is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 962
Interesting, according to this news article, the 9th previously ruled against concealed carry and now, today, they have ruled against open carry. If you can neither carry openly nor concealed how exactly does that meet the second amendment text of allowing one to "bear arms".

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...pen-carry-guns
HokieKev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2021, 12:18 PM #4
Scorpioj Scorpioj is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: The Far North South
Posts: 66
Scorpioj Scorpioj is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: The Far North South
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieKev View Post
Interesting, according to this news article, the 9th previously ruled against concealed carry and now, today, they have ruled against open carry. If you can neither carry openly nor concealed how exactly does that meet the second amendment text of allowing one to "bear arms".

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...pen-carry-guns
I think either the law was from a time when men could carry bear arms after a successful bear hunt OR when they were allowed to go sleeveless with shaved arms. IJS
Scorpioj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2021, 04:24 PM #5
rbird7282's Avatar
rbird7282 rbird7282 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,559
rbird7282 rbird7282 is offline
Senior Member
rbird7282's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,559
Good, let's kick it up to SCOTUS. F the 9th.
rbird7282 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2021, 04:44 PM #6
Auggie93 Auggie93 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3
Auggie93 Auggie93 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3
Agreed
Auggie93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2021, 09:17 AM #7
JMangle's Avatar
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 790
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
JMangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen65 View Post
Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snallygaster View Post
The promise of a bullet in every member of the pilot's family for starters. This kind of crap has the potential to get real nasty, real quick and anyone with a functioning brain won't want escalate it.

A hot CW2 holds no appeal for me at all.
See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2021, 10:05 AM #8
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,426
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.
The conventional wisdom is that the votes were not there or were unclear. That may have changed now with ACB taking RBGs seat.
The NYC carry case was just relisted so a good sign already. Monday at 9:30am we find out perhaps if the court takes the case.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2021, 12:24 PM #9
JMangle's Avatar
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 790
JMangle JMangle is offline
Handsome Engineer
JMangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 790
Yeah, I forgot about the NY case.
JMangle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2021, 01:27 PM #10
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,583
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMangle View Post
See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The conventional wisdom is that the votes were not there or were unclear. That may have changed now with ACB taking RBGs seat.
The NYC carry case was just relisted so a good sign already. Monday at 9:30am we find out perhaps if the court takes the case.
They have taken two cases where the lower court's reasoning has been fundamentally wrong; Caetano and NYSRPA.

The conventional wisdom is wrong and the two cases I have cited help to demonstrate why it is not really about the votes. It is really about the arguments that are presented.

The real problem is deference and how you need to argue a case when the court is being deferential. I believe the dissent in the recent 6CA bump stock case does a good job of articulating the issue (they are wrong on the facts of the case though) https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opi...1a0070p-06.pdf The relevant discussion starts on pg 55. They are talking about Chevron, which refers to a particular case, which now requires the courts to be deferential to the government in certain cases.

The 2A as argued is ambiguous. The government certainly does have the obligation to protect society and that certain rights do get curtailed because of this. On the other hand we need to protect the individual right. The way these cases get argued is that they appear to be two separate issues, one about public safety and the other about self defense.

2A cases are generally not Chevron deference cases, but one's personal beliefs certainly play a role in how deferential you are to particular arguments. Liberals/Democrats tend to focus almost exclusively on harm and fairness while Conservatives and Libertarians include other values (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory). You see the court tending to divide along political lines because the arguments presented make the issue ambiguous and the decisions are really based on one's moral foundations.

What is needed are different arguments that make the issue unambiguous. We need to focus on the other sides data and explain why it is wrong. We also need to shift the focus from an individual right to an argument based on public safety and how the only way society can protect itself is through individual self defense because the government can not protect its individual citizens.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service