• 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!

4 Police Chiefs Sued Over 'Excessively Delaying' Applications for Gun Permits

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,472
Reaction score
4,087
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Off the bat I'll say gun rights people really need to temper our expectations in this NY case . . . IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and it is very doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

I predict a true splitting the baby situation, I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.
Government has no authority to require a permit of any kind for any individual right. If you do not require a permit to post your opinion online, or a permit to allow you to exercise a particular religious belief, or a permit to associate with anyone you please, then you don't require a permit to carry a firearm in any manner you desire. Furthermore, the Second Amendment specifically prohibits any such infringements.

If any kind of government permit is allowed, then it cannot be an individual right. Since the Supreme Court has already acknowledged that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, it automatically makes all government permits/licenses unconstitutional.
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
7,319
Reaction score
2,917
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
IMNSHO, there is no 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and it is very doubtful the SCOTUS will affirm one.

Why not? The only reason concealed carry laws became a thing in the first place was to prevent free blacks from hiding their weapons.

Your right to keep and bear arms does not become void when you put on a jacket.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,472
Reaction score
4,087
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why not? The only reason concealed carry laws became a thing in the first place was to prevent free blacks from hiding their weapons.

Your right to keep and bear arms does not become void when you put on a jacket.
Also, the States could enact any form of gun control they desired, since the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government. All that, however, changed in 2010 with the McDonald decision. It should have happened 153 years before that, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but better late than never I suppose. The Supreme Court should be held accountable for depriving citizens their rights when it was being infringed upon by the States. Instead, they just pretended like the Fourteenth Amendment didn't exist, and they are still doing it. The Eighth Amendment was finally incorporated in 2020, and there are still parts of the Fifth Amendment that still do not apply to the States, like the Grand Jury requirement for capital offenses.
 

Willie Orwontee

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
729
Reaction score
667
Location
Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why not? The only reason concealed carry laws became a thing in the first place was to prevent free blacks from hiding their weapons.

Your right to keep and bear arms does not become void when you put on a jacket.

I doubt that this SCOTUS will revisit and reverse Heller and declare the 2nd Amendment does secure a right to keep and carry in any manner whatsoever. I disagree with @Glitch that the right is absolute and beyond any regulation, especially in a narrow aspect such as a "right" to concealed carry, which is entirely a creation of state law.

Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of gun carry and concealed carry specifically (primarily and simply because the 2nd was not applicable to the states).

The concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was fully in the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand that going back into the 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

Both sides need to understand that this New York situation is peculiar in the overall scheme of gun rights simply because New York (and California and New Jersey and Maryland) do not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution.

In each of those states, the state legislatures has taken that to mean ANYTHING is possible as far as gun control goes, so they prohibited or severely restricted all carry (open and concealed) . . .

This has created a legal problem though, New York's (and CA's, NJ's and MD's) legal justification for state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (not just carry and we are talking about looking back over 100 years) was not built upon any interest in what a "right to keep and bear arms" is, and how that constrains legislative action . . . There was no testing of NY state laws against a state RKBA provision like what occurred in states with a RKBA provision.

This legal 'insulation' has led to much ignorance regarding the basic question of what the right to arms "is" in those states and has polluted state court decisions which tee up the law for their federal Districts and Circuits to examine. Much of that lower court law is thoroughly incompatible with the 2ndA . . .

There is a hydra of laws to de-tangle and I do not see the Court unwinding all state power to regulate the carriage of arms within their borders -- at least through this case. I understand the absolutist arguments and the equal protection arguments but there is also the 10th Amendment that recognizes certain powers over internal order remain in the state government's prerogative.

The enforcement of the RKBA is in its infancy and it will not occur in one fell swoop. @Glitch is right, the delay of enforcement has been a travesty of law and is long overdue but what he demands will not be happening in one decision.

.
 

natman

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
854
Reaction score
520
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That pesky pandemic! How rude of it to delay people their God-given right to purchase a gun!

I see that the MSN news feed algorithm is working quite well.
Would you accept an 8-11 month delay in registering to vote? There shouldn't be a municipal permit needed to exercise a constitutional right, but if a city imposes one, then they have a responsibility to issue them in a timely fashion, Covid or not.

Until you accept the reality that you have every bit as much right to buy a gun as you do to vote, exercise free speech or practice the religion of your choice, you'll continue to be wrong about this issue.
 

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
389
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Would you accept an 8-11 month delay in registering to vote? There shouldn't be a municipal permit needed to exercise a constitutional right, but if a city imposes one, then they have a responsibility to issue them in a timely fashion, Covid or not.

Until you accept the reality that you have every bit as much right to buy a gun as you do to vote, exercise free speech or practice the religion of your choice, you'll continue to be wrong about this issue.
Very well put.
 

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
389
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'd say if you're going westward stop in Idaho. DO NOT PASS Idaho do not collect $200.00 Oregon's going to hell.
Most of Oregon is red. Its Portland that needs to break off and drift away, much like the west coast of CA.
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And yet his opinion matters and yours does not.
Just like yours. And everyone else's on this forum. About literally every topic posted. So why are you here?
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
7,077
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
But you dismiss peoples' opinions as not mattering. None of them do here. So what's the point?
Did you look at the specific post I was replying to? @Glitch was presenting the position that all gun laws, federal and state, are unconstitutional. I pointed out that Scalia and Alito thought otherwise, and by the benefit of their position and power, their opinion was law. His was not.

If all the arguments presented are based purely on feelings and personal opinion, then there is no point. The difference is when someone presents an argument based on an opinion from someone who has the authority and power to turn that opinion into law, ie, SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal, etc. That's why the good arguments cite legal cases and the bad arguments talk about penises.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,472
Reaction score
4,087
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Did you look at the specific post I was replying to? @Glitch was presenting the position that all gun laws, federal and state, are unconstitutional. I pointed out that Scalia and Alito thought otherwise, and by the benefit of their position and power, their opinion was law. His was not.
Their opinion is not law. It is in fact wrong, and deliberately so. Making Scalia and Alito the enemies of the US Constitution and the American people.

If all the arguments presented are based purely on feelings and personal opinion, then there is no point. The difference is when someone presents an argument based on an opinion from someone who has the authority and power to turn that opinion into law, ie, SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal, etc. That's why the good arguments cite legal cases and the bad arguments talk about penises.
You clearly need a lesson in basic civics. The courts do not enact the laws (unless you are an anti-constitutional piece of shit activist judge, like Scalia), the legislature does. Get a clue.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,324
Reaction score
82,735
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Their opinion is not law. It is in fact wrong, and deliberately so. Making Scalia and Alito the enemies of the US Constitution and the American people.


You clearly need a lesson in basic civics. The courts do not enact the laws (unless you are an anti-constitutional piece of shit activist judge, like Scalia), the legislature does. Get a clue.
I think you have misread Rucker's post. Perhaps a paucity of worthy comments from gun banners cause some pro gun posters to seek "debate" with other pro gun posters. Saying Alito and Scalia are enemies of the constitution appears myopic.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
7,077
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think you have misread Rucker's post. Perhaps a paucity of worthy comments from gun banners cause some pro gun posters to seek "debate" with other pro gun posters. Saying Alito and Scalia are enemies of the constitution appears myopic.
Your turn.
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Did you look at the specific post I was replying to? @Glitch was presenting the position that all gun laws, federal and state, are unconstitutional. I pointed out that Scalia and Alito thought otherwise, and by the benefit of their position and power, their opinion was law. His was not.
But do you think that's something that needs pointing out? Do you think he's under the impression that he makes law? Or do you think he's just giving his opinion and he knows it?

If all the arguments presented are based purely on feelings and personal opinion, then there is no point. The difference is when someone presents an argument based on an opinion from someone who has the authority and power to turn that opinion into law, ie, SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal, etc. That's why the good arguments cite legal cases and the bad arguments talk about penises.
The point is to discuss things. Sometimes it comes down to basic ideological/philosophical points. Some of those points will be out of step with current law. Ultimately, none of our opinions have any import. That doesn't mean it's productive to point that out as a criticism of the opinion.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
7,077
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The point is to discuss things. Sometimes it comes down to basic ideological/philosophical points. Some of those points will be out of step with current law. Ultimately, none of our opinions have any import. That doesn't mean it's productive to point that out as a criticism of the opinion.
I was comparing the worth of the opinion of the poster to that of Scalia and Alito, whose opinions of the subject include the full power of the government of the United States in support.
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I was comparing the worth of the opinion of the poster to that of Scalia and Alito, whose opinions of the subject include the full power of the government of the United States in support.
Again, there is no purpose in doing so. We're all impotent here. We all know it. We're still here to discuss our opinions, whether they agree with those currently in power or not.

This will be my last post on this subject, as we're getting rather far afield from the topic of the thread. However, I'd just ask you to wonder if, when your post is only belittling someone's opinion on the basis of the fact that they aren't in a position to change anything, whether the "point" needs to be made at all.

Cheers.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
7,077
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, there is no purpose in doing so. We're all impotent here. We all know it. We're still here to discuss our opinions, whether they agree with those currently in power or not.

This will be my last post on this subject, as we're getting rather far afield from the topic of the thread. However, I'd just ask you to wonder if, when your post is only belittling someone's opinion on the basis of the fact that they aren't in a position to change anything, whether the "point" needs to be made at all.

Cheers.
Have you seen how many times said poster has belittled everyone else's opinion, including that of multiple Supreme Courts?
 

Grizzly Adams

COVID breakthrough
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Have you seen how many times said poster has belittled everyone else's opinion, including that of multiple Supreme Courts?
No. Knowing that he's one of the more reactionary folks when it comes to guns, I rarely read his posts on the topic, as I can usually predict their gist.

(No offense to him intended.)

And now I'm seriously done on this.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
11,472
Reaction score
4,087
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think you have misread Rucker's post. Perhaps a paucity of worthy comments from gun banners cause some pro gun posters to seek "debate" with other pro gun posters. Saying Alito and Scalia are enemies of the constitution appears myopic.
I did not misread Rucker's utter nonsense about "their opinion was law." It is not law, and in this particular case not even constitutional. Any Supreme Court justice who deliberately inserts their own criteria into a decision and then pretends that the US Constitution supports their personal criteria is obviously an enemy of the US Constitution and the American people. First they intentionally deprive Americans for 153 years of their constitutionally protected right, then they manufacture criteria that doesn't exist out of thin air and expect Americans to swallow their bullshit.

There is absolutely no defense you can make for the anti-American and unconstitutional behavior of Scalia. The evidence of his crime against the American people is in black and white, by his own hand.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,324
Reaction score
82,735
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I did not misread Rucker's utter nonsense about "their opinion was law." It is not law, and in this particular case not even constitutional. Any Supreme Court justice who deliberately inserts their own criteria into a decision and then pretends that the US Constitution supports their personal criteria is obviously an enemy of the US Constitution and the American people. First they intentionally deprive Americans for 153 years of their constitutionally protected right, then they manufacture criteria that doesn't exist out of thin air and expect Americans to swallow their bullshit.

There is absolutely no defense you can make for the anti-American and unconstitutional behavior of Scalia. The evidence of his crime against the American people is in black and white, by his own hand.
do you think Scalia would have had a majority opinion if he held the New Deal was unconstitutional and everything based on Wickard v Filburn and that progeny was struck down?
 
Top Bottom