• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules

If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?


  • Total voters
    33
In which case I'd say that yes, this law is unconstitutional as it pretty much bars any guns from being carried when combined with what you quoted. States cannot completely ban or make it prohibitively hard to be able to exercise a persons right to bear arms.

Agreed, however, we shall see if that standard stands the test of time when the current slab of cases make their way to the SCOTUS, and if Obama or Clinton are the ones that make the appointment to fill the seat vacated by Scalia.

I read on here, I can't remember who wrote it, a proposal that sounded great to me - Have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire, so we go back to basically a balanced court with Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle as a swing vote. No reason we can't have 7 versus 9.
 
Here ya go, from the folks that try to get gun laws passed to restrict us, this what they say:

ewww
sounds way too ****ty and convoluted for me . . while bunch of ifs ands and buts that I dont think id support at all.

IMO a state must have one or the other and honestly I dont "like" that im just willing to deal with it and fight it slowly.

Open or concealed, period.

If it was up to me id make open national law the way it should be and my CWP would be like a drivers license and recognized in EVERY state.
 
Unless of course Hillary appoints SCOTUS judges...then it more than likely will be...at least for a long time at any rate.

Not exactly. The decision (here -https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/10-56971/009128111226.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22E.C.F.%209th%20Cir.%2010-56971%20dckt%20000333_000%20filed%202016-06-09.pdf%22&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160609T153038Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160609/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b672fae1df6941d1b870c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13 ) is basically a springboard for the next case to come in and say "If concealed carry isn't protected then open carry must be protected because the 2A is pretty doggone specific about the right to both keep and bear arms".
 
Except the 10th states "All powers not delegated". One would think that the 2nd delegates those powers, and in a clearly understood manner.

If the courts let California prevail, then the entire bill of rights is in serious trouble.

To me, and this is just my interpretation of it, bearing arms doesn't require that you do it in a concealed manner. As long as they have open carry to me that would satisfy a right to bear arms.
THat being said some California counties allow that, but the metro ones generally don't. To me , one way or the other, California would need to change their laws to be compliant.
I don't know how this will go down. I guess we will see.
 

Depends entirely on how the judges interpret the 2nd Amendment and interpret what is or isn't a restriction that violates the 2nd Amendment.

For instance they could rule that a $10,000 tax on guns is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment...its just a tax that falls with in the federal governments power to tax, just like they did with Obamacare's Mandate.
 
Do you think the 2 A will be thrown out of the constitution?
Other wise what do you mean?

It means that the Second Amendment will be "interpreted" to conclude that the only the military has a guaranteed right to bear arms.
 
To me, and this is just my interpretation of it, bearing arms doesn't require that you do it in a concealed manner. As long as they have open carry to me that would satisfy a right to bear arms.
THat being said some California counties allow that, but the metro ones generally don't. To me , one way or the other, California would need to change their laws to be compliant.
I don't know how this will go down. I guess we will see.

This will be contested, but will not reach the Supreme Court until after the election and the filling of Scalia's seat. So until we know the new justice, it's anybodies guess.
 
Depends entirely on how the judges interpret the 2nd Amendment and interpret what is or isn't a restriction that violates the 2nd Amendment.

For instance they could rule that a $10,000 tax on guns is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment...its just a tax that falls with in the federal governments power to tax, just like they did with Obamacare's Mandate.

A blanket $10k tax on firearms just because they are firearms would be, without question, "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms. Not even Sotomayor and Gisnburg would go along with that.
 
ewww
sounds way too ****ty and convoluted for me . . while bunch of ifs ands and buts that I dont think id support at all.

IMO a state must have one or the other and honestly I dont "like" that im just willing to deal with it and fight it slowly.

Open or concealed, period.
That's actually the way I understand the standard to be according to the SCOTUS - one or the other at a minimum.

If it was up to me id make open national law the way it should be and my CWP would be like a drivers license and recognized in EVERY state.

You see, that makes way to much sense. I totally agree that open carry should be a national standard for everyone, and CCW (CWP) should be like a drivers license that's issued locally but good everywhere in every state of the United States, all areas under US jurisdiction (like the District of Columbia, federal parks, and national forests) and all US possessions (like Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands [although I have to admit, I've never met a virgin there], the Marshall Islands, American Samoa, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, and all the other islands, banks and atolls that are scattered across the Pacific that are US territories).
 
A blanket $10k tax on firearms just because they are firearms would be, without question, "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms. Not even Sotomayor and Gisnburg would go along with that.

wouldnt a 10k tax on a firearm be no different than a poll tax... an unreasonable financial burden designed for the purpose of preventing at least some people from being able to exercise a constitutional right.
 
That's actually the way I understand the standard to be according to the SCOTUS - one or the other at a minimum.



You see, that makes way to much sense. I totally agree that open carry should be a national standard for everyone, and CCW (CWP) should be like a drivers license that's issued locally but good everywhere in every state of the United States, all areas under US jurisdiction (like the District of Columbia, federal parks, and national forests) and all US possessions (like Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands [although I have to admit, I've never met a virgin there], the Marshall Islands, American Samoa, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, and all the other islands, banks and atolls that are scattered across the Pacific that are US territories).


yep, i agree makes to much sense and thats way its so hard...

although i have met an occasional gun advocate against the national license because they associate it with a national registry...

ALong with all those areas you named i also think there should be LESS gun free zones.
 
A blanket $10k tax on firearms just because they are firearms would be, without question, "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms. Not even Sotomayor and Gisnburg would go along with that.

It was simply an example meant to illustrate a point. A number pulled outta my butt. Put it down to a more "reasonable" (yet still prohibitive to poor people) tax...would SCOTUS judges that are against citizens owning guns have a problem and rule against such taxes? Which is the main point here. You're argument relies on judges being impartial in their rulings. And yeah, that's the way it is SUPPOSED to be. But it doesn't always turn out that way does it? Its why there's such a hubbub about liberals getting into the Whitehouse in order to appoint liberal SCOTUS judges and why conservatives are the exact same way as the liberals. Neither side wants to appoint impartial judges.
 
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia



If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?
Yes
No
Other- pls explain
Unsure

There are 42 states that allow carry only with a permit. Th precedent for prohibitions actually goes back to the 1880s with places like Wichita Kansas. It will be an interesting contest, but I'll bet that the court goes with "carry" for the militia, as they will see fit for states to have protections from just anyone carrying a gun.
 
wouldnt a 10k tax on a firearm be no different than a poll tax... an unreasonable financial burden designed for the purpose of preventing at least some people from being able to exercise a constitutional right.

No doubt.
 
wouldnt a 10k tax on a firearm be no different than a poll tax... an unreasonable financial burden designed for the purpose of preventing at least some people from being able to exercise a constitutional right.

Unfortunately "poll" taxes are only prohibited from voting rights. Hence the reason its called "poll". Beyond common sense there is technically no legal prohibition against taxing guns outrageously...or any other right that isn't voting for that matter. Particularly when thinking like a lawyer/politician who LOVE technicalities and loopholes.
 
yep, i agree makes to much sense and thats way its so hard...

although i have met an occasional gun advocate against the national license because they associate it with a national registry...

ALong with all those areas you named i also think there should be LESS gun free zones.

IMHO, a gun free zone is the same as a free crime zone. Look at where mass shootings take place - most are in gun free zones - where the killer is the only one with a gun.
 
It was simply an example meant to illustrate a point. A number pulled outta my butt. Put it down to a more "reasonable" (yet still prohibitive to poor people) tax...would SCOTUS judges that are against citizens owning guns have a problem and rule against such taxes? Which is the main point here. You're argument relies on judges being impartial in their rulings. And yeah, that's the way it is SUPPOSED to be. But it doesn't always turn out that way does it? Its why there's such a hubbub about liberals getting into the Whitehouse in order to appoint liberal SCOTUS judges and why conservatives are the exact same way as the liberals. Neither side wants to appoint impartial judges.

Well, you've got McDonald v Chicago that says a city can't prohibit both concealed and open carry. That's why Chicago had to start issuing CCW. This case now says that concealed isn't protected so that MUST mean that open carry has to be allowed. Seems to me that the 9th circuit just set themselves up to guarantee open carry in CA.
 
It means that the Second Amendment will be "interpreted" to conclude that the only the military has a guaranteed right to bear arms.

No it will not. What you may see is more regulations for ID checks, security checks, types of weapons, sales at gun shows but 2 A will not become what you fear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Well, you've got McDonald v Chicago that says a city can't prohibit both concealed and open carry. That's why Chicago had to start issuing CCW. This case now says that concealed isn't protected so that MUST mean that open carry has to be allowed. Seems to me that the 9th circuit just set themselves up to guarantee open carry in CA.

Bold: One can only hope.
 
I am on unfamiliar ground here. I know next to nothing about Fed- State laws for firearms
Are there not States that regulate concealed carry. Or prohibit open carry?

Read the state's decision for yourself, and then go read the 2nd amendment. The state is already in violation by it's own wording by stating that concealed versus open carry is not covered. I have to laugh because California already hates open carry.
 
There are 42 states that allow carry only with a permit. Th precedent for prohibitions actually goes back to the 1880s with places like Wichita Kansas. It will be an interesting contest, but I'll bet that the court goes with "carry" for the militia, as they will see fit for states to have protections from just anyone carrying a gun.

Afternoon J
The case you are referring to, do you have a link to it??
In Canada we are required to take a course- 1 for unrestricted and another for restricted weapons. I do not think you need another course upon license renewals. Licenses are for 5 years.
And yes, like driving when medically - physically impaired and unable to drive safely, some people should not be anywhere near a weapon or have it in their possession.
 
IMHO, a gun free zone is the same as a free crime zone. Look at where mass shootings take place - most are in gun free zones - where the killer is the only one with a gun.

I agree they are simply an invite to do a crime where you know most people wont have a gun its stupid..
its like the equivalent of a "no police or security on duty sign" lol

But where they really bother me is where they trap people into disarming themselves .. . .for just ONE example large college campuses, especially those mixed in with a city where people live . . thats just dumb
 
Read the state's decision for yourself, and then go read the 2nd amendment. The state is already in violation by it's own wording by stating that concealed versus open carry is not covered. I have to laugh because California already hates open carry.

I mentioned earlier I know next to nothing about your gun laws, and you can include State Crt decisions, all the way up to SCOTUS.
Thank you for the assistance on this.
 
You just made my point for me. It's a BS decision based entirely on a BS premise to begin with.

I disagree... my point shows that your point is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment does not say that there can not be restrictions on gun ownership and that is why we have them...
 
Back
Top Bottom