• 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!

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge


Why? Are you aware of any more gun incidents/accidents by people cc'ing their firearms in states without all that? Your neighbor, WA, requires almost none of that and there arent innocents being gunned down accidentally in the streets. I cant remember ever once reading of an incident like that out in public.

We require no training, no test. Permits come in about a week.

I do think it's interesting that the implication is that if it's not required, no one has/gets training. Cuz that is ridiculous. Many people who carry/own guns hunt, shoot for pleasure, grew up with guns, compete, voluntarily get training, any/all the above.
 

It's not about regulating policy. It's about leaving the Constitution alone. Screw the states. The constitution trumps them on the second amendment.
 

What? SCOTUS should come out and just say that Americans can *bear* arms in public, concealed or openly....just like the 2A clearly states when it uses the word 'bear.'
 

That makes no sense at all. Constitutional carry should not vary in each town, county or state. What other individual constitutional rights do you feel should be granted only by "may issue" permits and a after paying a non-refundable application fee? Perhaps "have an attorney present during police questioning" permits would bring in some much needed revenue, after all, that right only applies to criminals.
 
I am a gun owner. I have never open carried. Honestly I don't think having to conceal the weapon is an infringement. It doesn't prevent you from owning the weapon.
 

IIRC Texas had a similar law until they made it legal for anyone owning a gun to legally carry it loaded in a vehicle or boat.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
The judicial branch of the federal government has every constitutional right to decline to see a case. Congress is trying to force the judicial to do what they are elected to do: Pass laws.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong.

The SC can pretty much take or reject cases at it's whim.

However this isn't a case of doing the legislature's job. There is a legitimate Constitutional question here. Eventually another circuit court will rule opposite what the 3rd did in this case and the SC will be forced to rule on the issue.
 
WCH said:
IIRC Texas had a similar law until they made it legal for anyone owning a gun to legally carry it loaded in a vehicle or boat.
Click to expand...

It is not legal to open carry a handgun in Texas except on your property, in your car/boat or going to your car (how it legally got away from your car is unclear). It is also not legal in Texas to open carry a handgun even with a CHL (bill pending to change that) in public.
 
danarhea said:
It's not about regulating policy. It's about leaving the Constitution alone. Screw the states. The constitution trumps them on the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
What? SCOTUS should come out and just say that Americans can *bear* arms in public, concealed or openly....just like the 2A clearly states when it uses the word 'bear.'
Click to expand...

Does anyone thing it's a good idea to carry a concealed weapon when meeting the president? Or what about on a plane? There are certainly places in which no one thinks it's a good idea to allow even small arms. Once we accept that some forms of small arms regulations are inevitable, then we have to decide who's in the best position to make those decisions.

If you accept that the government can ban handguns in the vicinity of the president, then the government obviously has the ability to ban handguns. If SCOTUS would have determined that a community can't regulate conceled carry permits, then is any one allowed to regulate it? Where is the line? Why couldn't I then take a handgun on a plane?

I think local governments are in the best position to determine gun laws. The latest ruling by the SCOTUS would seem to agree.
 
IMO if you can pass a background check, you should be able to open-carry except in special cases where the private owner of a property doesn't allow it, or federal/state buildings.
 
Mithros said:
Does anyone thing it's a good idea to carry a concealed weapon when meeting the president? Or what about on a plane?
Click to expand...

Why not? I can't find in the constitution where it says that one has the right to keep and bear arms except for when meeting the president and flying on an airplane.

I'll bet a few armed citizens on airplanes on September 11, 2001 would have been a great thing.
 
`
I disagree. If the states want autonomy from the federal government, they have to pass better laws that are constitutionally sound. This includes the prohibition of certain individuals from owning guns. Going to SCOTUS because they lack the guts to take unpopular stands, is not an excuse.
 
voyager1 said:
I am a gun owner. I have never open carried. Honestly I don't think having to conceal the weapon is an infringement. It doesn't prevent you from owning the weapon.
Click to expand...

My self-defense firearm cant do much for me when I leave home then, can it? Is the only place I need to defend myself at home?
 

But what is constitutional carry? That's the point I was trying to get at.

Can a community require you to take a class or pass a test before giving you a conceal carry licence? Can they charge a fee? When you get down to it, you don't need a permit to do anything that's constitutionally protected. So saying that conceal carry is a constitutional right essentially means that the entire conceal carry permit process is unconstitutional in every jurisdiction. That's a scary thought. Because lets face it, no one thinks that everyone should have a gun.

Gun enthusiasts may be very pro second amendment, but they're also VERY pro safety. Talk to anyone with a gun and they can spend hours telling you the proper way to load, store, clean, stand, fire, etc.. IMO, everyone has a right to carry the same way that everyone has a right to drive a car. If you do it right, the government should leave you the hell alone. Do it wrong, endanger your neighbors, and yeah... please take that guys gun away.
 

There is a vast gap between something not being a good idea and it being declared a felony. If you wish to declare some gun free zones and actually enforce them then that is OK by me - so long as the state (or whoever declared the gun free zone) is 100% liable for anyone shot, raped, robbed or assaulted inside of them. It is insane to expect a sign or a law to stop criminals - that requires actual security and law enforcement personnel.
 

I'm curious how many people knew how to shoot and handle a gun before they got their training approved by the state? I was taught by my father that was a sniper in the military, but apparently his training is inferior to the states. It reminds me of child care providers being told they aren't experts in how to do their job even if they have been doing it for thirty years, but this person that has been doing their job for a week is. It's pretty goddamn insulting, imho.
 

The govt bans *people* in general from around the president. Lots of them, anyone it chooses, anyone it doesnt approve of, anyone it doesnt like the looks of. That doesnt mean it has the right (or intent) to ban people in public.
 

Yes, it must be concealed from public view. (not referring to open carry) Before you had to have the ammo and gun stored separately in your vehicle or boat or have a special permit/reason to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle or boat.
 

It's BS that they didn't take it up. I can understand them punting cases that are not so direct as this one. But frankly this is so obvious that it boggles the mind that there would be some question to it. Such a Constitutional question could have been resolved in a day at most. And yet such a ruling would have affected the whole of the US in a positive way.

And yes, I realize that some think it would be negative. Frankly, I don't care what they think. I'm sick of anti-gun nuts trying to infringe on peoples right to own a gun every single friggen chance they get.
 

As it is, a gun owner/carrier must know and obey the laws in any states where they travel. And there are many and they differ everywhere. Now you would like to see that expanded to communities randomly?
 

Several errors in logic here. Yes, everyone (adult and not under a court order) has that and every other constitutional right. Rights are what we all have unless taken away by due process of law. Driving (on public roadways) is a state issued privilege - nobody has that "right" (actually a privilege) until and unless the state grants it. That, in a nut shell, is the difference between a right and a privilege.
 

I'd say that would fall into the criminal negligence category. If I have a gun free zone and I don't bother to provide any security when there are known threats then sure.. the governing body is at least partially responsible. (I'd not make it 100% as the actual shooter/rapist/robber still bears a good bit of the blame).

But once we acknowledge that the government must be allowed to regulate arms; we have to start thinking about how much they should be allowed to regulate and who gets to make the final determination as to what's the right amount and what's too much. Honest people are going to have honest disagreements about what that is. eg.. can the permitting authority mandate that you have to take an instructional class before you can conceal carry? Does a blind person have a right to conceal carry a handgun? But someone is going to have to make that determination. I'd rather that be a few of my neighbors rather than 5 people I've never met on a bench in DC.
 
Lursa said:
As it is, a gun owner/carrier must know and obey the laws in any states where they travel. And there are many and they differ everywhere. Now you would like to see that expanded to communities randomly?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think communities have the right to regulate arms providing the regulations serve a justifiable public benefit. There's nothing random about it.
 

I'm not following you. The states didn't go to the SCOTUS. Private citizens appealed to the SCOTUSbecause the Federal 3rd circuit court ruled that the NJ law was constitutional. The citizens are completely within their rights appeal to the SC and as you noted the SC can decide to not hear the appeal.
 

Same background check required in OH.

It still does not make it right, though.

Frankly, it was a non-issue for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…