- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.
The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New Jersey state law that requires people who want to carry handguns to show they have a special reason before they can get a permit. The court has shown a reluctance to wade in on the issue in recent months, declining to hear cases that challenged similar regulations in New York and Maryland.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NJ requiring a special reason to carry a gun infringes on the second amendment.the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.
Discussion?
Article is here.
Just doing some quick research and ran across this: McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The synopsis is It seems pretty obvious to me that NJ requiring a special reason to carry a gun infringes on the second amendment.
I personally would like to see a lawsuit challenging the need for a CCW permit in the first place.
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.
Discussion?
Article is here.
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
There is little doubt that requiring a permit is a violation of the second amendment.
That is nonsense because that is precisely what the SCOTUS did - they said **** the constitution we decline to enforce it.
McDonald v. Chicago ruling was an extention of Heller. Heller allowed weapons for self-protection in the home...in the DC. [McD v Chi] extended that right to the states.
No court has ruled yet if use extends outside the home... conceal /open carry.
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
By not hearing the case, they allowed the lower court's interpretation to stand. It's just not the ruling you would have wished for.
So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.
`That is nonsense because that is precisely what the SCOTUS did - they said **** the constitution we decline to enforce it.
I would add that to carry outside the home, one should also have full FBI variety background check, pass a required gun safety/handling/proficiency course, and register your firearm. This is what I had to do to get a CCW in Idaho, one of the reddest states in the country, well, I didn't have to register my handgun, but I think probably I should have been required to if I was going to carry such that if my gun and I got separated and the police arrived, the police would immediately know what they were looking for and what threat it might cause them.'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.
Discussion?
Article is here.
I'm consistent. I am against the school prayer ruling too..... Well, actually, I'd be for it if they allowed Pastafarianism in our schools. Talk Like a Pirate Day could become a real American tradition. ARRRRRR!! :mrgreen:
`
That's one popular position to take but that only adds a third reason why SCOTUS wisely stayed away....let the legislative branch do their job.
So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.
Discussion?
Article is here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?