• 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!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry

Deuce said:
Does this absolute right include purchases? No background checks, no requirements, etc?
Click to expand...

I think if the person served their time and have been deemed safe to allow back into society they should have their rights restored as well. If they are a danger to society then they should not be back on the streets period. a background check should be for the purpose of determining if a person is a citizen or not period. Naturally criminals at large should not be allowed to purchase guns. But all citizens should be treated equally under the law. Time to end the class system and the prejudice belief that some people are deserving of rights and others aren't.
 
Deuce said:
Should states all be forced to allow concealed carry without condition?
Click to expand...

I do not really have a problem with states having conditions as long as they are reasonable and if meet result in a permit issued. (Examples: safety course, criminal background check, proficiency with weapon) I do think the carry permit from one state should be recognized in all states like a drivers license is.
 
domer76 said:
You fail to understand the original intent of the Second as well as SCOTUS rulings on it.
Click to expand...

No, apparently you do.

Heller left open the question of whether the right to bear arms was enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there was a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then. In 2010, in the case of McDonald v Chicago, the U. S. Supreme Court held (5 to 4) that the 2nd Amendment right has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and is fully enforceable against the states.
Click to expand...

The Right to Bear Arms
 
Lutherf said:
In this case it was just flat out ignored in favor of colonial era English law.
Click to expand...

The comments below are from the DC v Heller SCOTUS ruling:

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service.... “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.
Click to expand...

Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Click to expand...

District of Columbia v Heller (2008)
 
Deuce said:
Shall not be infringed, except some people aren't allowed?
Click to expand...

If you break the law, you lose some of your Constitutional rights. Try voting after being in prison.
 
danarhea said:
If you break the law, you lose some of your Constitutional rights. Try voting after being in prison.
Click to expand...

So, "sometimes shall be infringed if you deserve it."

How about children?
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not sure what to make of this, but with it facing an obvious appeal and a current 4-4 Court, it very well could stand!

And with Hillary a very possible winner in the election, it could face a liberal court years down the road as well.
Click to expand...

This is an illegal ruling.
 
Chillfolks said:
I don't think children should be able to conceal carry ��
Click to expand...

What about the other none amendments in The Bill of Rights? They don't qualify for those, either?
 
domer76 said:
Peehaps Garland is starting to look better and better to the Republicans. They should have taken him when given the chance.
Click to expand...

why-evering about him-his ethnic background, his politics and his prior decisions suggest a Bannerrhoid
 
Deuce said:
Should states all be forced to allow concealed carry without condition?
Click to expand...

IMHO people -once the second amendment was finally and unmistakably incorporated and operative upon the states,-have a clear right to carry a firearm in public. NOW under the 10th amendment and the police powers of each state, there is some leeway in limiting how they carry. but if a state does not have SHALL ISSUE CCW licenses then the state must allow open carry. It cannot make both types of carry subject to the whims of pricks in office.

I also believe that any politician who seeks to prohibit honest citizens from being able to be armed on the public streets of that jurisdiction, is unfit for office and certainly is not entitled to any armed protection paid for by the tax dollars taken from said citizens
 
danarhea said:
I am sure that he is not saying that, but if Democrats take back the Senate this year, which looks likely, Republicans are going to wish they confirmed him, after seeing the new nominee that Democrats are going to invoke the nuclear option to get appointed.
Click to expand...

the best thing that could happen to the GOP (assuming the lying bitch is elected) is hillary putting some howling asshole on the court that tries to overturn Heller.

Heller helped Obama win the 08 election by easing the fears of union gun owners that voting for Obama wouldn't hurt gun rights.
 
domer76 said:
You fail to understand the original intent of the Second as well as SCOTUS rulings on it.
Click to expand...

the original intent was to guarantee an individual NATURAL RIGHT that the founders believed all men were endowed with and which pre-existed government, That right being one of free men to be armed as they saw fit

BTW the Constitution contains Absolutely no delegation of any gun control power to the federal government so the second amendment was merely reinforcing something the founders agreed upon but which some of the "anti federalists" worried had to be spelled out
 
domer76 said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

He's right, you are incorrect. tell me where in the constitution was gun control a power delegated to the federal government and why was that "power" not "discovered" until the administration most hostile to the limits placed on the federal government took power? (140+ years after the document was adopted?)
 
danarhea said:
I am sure that he is not saying that, but if Democrats take back the Senate this year, which looks likely, Republicans are going to wish they confirmed him, after seeing the new nominee that Democrats are going to invoke the nuclear option to get appointed.
Click to expand...

The Democrats do not want to do that. If they do, the demonstrations in Ferguson and elsewhere as of late, will look calm and peaceful in comparison.
 
domer76 said:
I'm saying they were offered a much more moderate judge than what Clinton is going to place into nomination.
Click to expand...

That could be true. However, Clinton has to avoid a potential indictment and conviction, as well as win the actual election.

However, be that as it may, if the Second Amendment is destroyed by the Democrats and their appointment to the SCOTUS, this country will erupt.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree with the 9th Circus Court's decision, which will be easy overturned in the SCOTUS.

But that Hillary should not be allowed Secret Service protection is close to wishing that she would be assassinated. I most emphatically disagree with that part of your post, even though I am sure you said it tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...
As I posted upthread, one would think it might easily be overturned - but will it be?

Both Heller & McDonald were narrowly won 5-4 rulings. Justice Scalia is gone now, leaving a 4-4 Court which would let the 9th ruling stand if no Justices have since changed their opinion. Now perhaps they would rule otherwise due to the precedent set by the earlier 5-4, but I have no ideas of the legal concepts or inclinations here outside of the political.

Also, the next President will appoint the 9th (tie breaker) Justice, and there's no guarantee the next Pres will be Trump (nor any guarantees who trump will indeed appoint).

So I think there's distinct possibilities of a challenge here. I think the 9th District is not as daff as they are made-out to be. They did this for some reason, that's for sure.
 
TurtleDude said:
IMHO people -once the second amendment was finally and unmistakably incorporated and operative upon the states,-have a clear right to carry a firearm in public. NOW under the 10th amendment and the police powers of each state, there is some leeway in limiting how they carry. but if a state does not have SHALL ISSUE CCW licenses then the state must allow open carry. It cannot make both types of carry subject to the whims of pricks in office.

I also believe that any politician who seeks to prohibit honest citizens from being able to be armed on the public streets of that jurisdiction, is unfit for office and certainly is not entitled to any armed protection paid for by the tax dollars taken from said citizens
Click to expand...

The 10th clearly states that it cannot conflict with the constitution. Thou shall not infringe clearly nullifies the states infringing on the rights of gun owners. Plus whether a law abiding citizen conceal carries or open carries makes no difference to the safety of the people of this country. You are a danger to society or you are not and that is what is important and should be addressed.

We do not need laws to restrict any of the law abiding citizens rights or freedom. Period.

We do need to address and do something about people who infringe on the rights and freedom of citizens.
 
domer76 said:
Peehaps Garland is starting to look better and better to the Republicans. They should have taken him when given the chance.
Click to expand...

Garland was a Political ploy by a President who thinks he has far more influence than he actually does

Obama knew he wouldn't get a hearing or confirmation

It was his way of trying to paint the GOP as obstructionist but, no one cared.

Well, hacks on the Left care, but the rest of America is focused on other issues luke the ECONOMY
 
Fenton said:
Garland was a Political ploy by a President who thinks he has far more influence than he actually does

Obama knew he wouldn't get a hearing or confirmation

It was his way of trying to paint the GOP as obstructionist but, no one cared.

Well, hacks on the Left care, but the rest of America is focused on other issues luke the ECONOMY
Click to expand...

Your party ****ed itself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom