U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
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.

The gov't then has 100% of the blame for those required to be unarmed becoming easier crime victims. If armed self defense is altered from a right to a crime in that zone then it is 100% due to the gov't (or whoever defined the zone) that you are not able to be armed. This is what is always ignored by the 2A "reasonable restriction" folks. Once you define a "gun free zone" then only the law abiding are unarmed within it.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
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.

But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?

Gaius46 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
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.

The issue here isn't requirements for training or licensing. It's "may issue" vs "shall issue". In "may issue" jurisdictions - like NJ - the licensing authority can deny an application for pretty much any reason whatsoever. If the licensing authority simply thinks that no citizen should ever be allowed to carry a firearm that's justification enough to deny every application. In a "shall issue" jurisdiction the license must be issue to anyone who isn't in a excluded class of citizen - typically the mentally ill and convicted felons (or sometimes violent felons).

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
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.

For instance, WA has a state constitution and it prohibits communities from specifically creating their own gun laws. This came up a few yrs ago when Seattle tried to prohibit guns from community centers and parks. It was challenged and shot down because it was unConstitutional under the state const.

It's an undue burden on people to have to be responsible for knowing a million separate regulations and laws per community. The state Const. is protecting gun owners rights and preventing communities (not private businesses) from restricting our gun rights.

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?

Nonsense. The words concealed and handgun appear nowhere in the 2A while the words keep and bear (carry) do. There is no knowledge test for any other constitutional right. If you want gun education taught in public schools then, by all means, do so but, even then, to assert that only the "properly educated" have rights is also unconstitutional.

Did the founding fathers not understand that not everyone was trained in gun use and of sound mind? Did these founding fathers live in a fantasy land and not foresee guns used in criminal acts? Of course, not - guns, morons and criminals are not something new or found only in NJ.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
For instance, WA has a state constitution and it prohibits communities from specifically creating their own gun laws. This came up a few yrs ago when Seattle tried to prohibit guns from community centers and parks. It was challenged and shot down because it was unConstitutional under the state const.

It's an undue burden on people to have to be responsible for knowing a million separate regulations and laws per community. The state Const. is protecting gun owners rights and preventing communities (not private businesses) from restricting our gun rights.

That's what the people of Washington decided. I don't have a problem with that. Other states need different regulations. New York City isn't the same as upstate NY.

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?

Who likes the idea of cc permits? Several states now do not require them. No blood in the streets yet.

And who says someone shouldnt buy a gun, hollowpoints, and walk down the street, all brandy new? I had my permit after a (voluntary) 2 hour ladies handgun class and had my permit before my 9mm even came in the mail. I shot it at the FFL/range where it came in, re-loaded it, and off I went to Wally World in search of cheap FMJ to practice with.

I did commit to training, still do it....but it's not up to you or anyone else to assume people are just irresponsible because they dont meet your comfort level of training or attitude. It's a *right*.

Summerwind · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
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.

When I was cc'd in Vancouver WA before moving to Idaho, I went through training and a background check. Now is that because it was a police officer down the street who assisted me in getting cc'd or was it the law? That I can't say for sure. I assumed it was the law. Nonetheless, there's never a harm in requiring people who legally want to be able to operate a deadly machine in a public place to take a test to show reasonable knowledge of the laws, the policies, and the operation of said machine.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. The words concealed and handgun appear nowhere in the 2A while the words keep and bear (carry) do. There is no knowledge test for any other constitutional right. If you want gun education taught in public schools then, by all means, do so but, even then, to assert that only the "properly educated" have rights is also unconstitutional.

Did the founding fathers not understand that not everyone was trained in gun use and of sound mind? Did these founding fathers live in a fantasy land and not foresee guns used in criminal acts? Of course, not - guns, morons and criminals are not something new or found only in NJ.

But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
That's what the people of Washington decided. I don't have a problem with that. Other states need different regulations. New York City isn't the same as upstate NY.

States and communities are 2 very different things which you keep avoiding. And I dont think NYC should have different gun laws than the rest of the state.

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.

"Well-regulated" in the language of the time referred to training

"Regular army" was the military. "Irregulars" were the militias.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
Who likes the idea of cc permits? Several states now do not require them. No blood in the streets yet.

And who says someone shouldnt buy a gun, hollowpoints, and walk down the street, all brandy new? I had my permit after a (voluntary) 2 hour ladies handgun class and had my permit before my 9mm even came in the mail. I shot it at the FFL/range where it came in, re-loaded it, and off I went to Wally World in search of cheap FMJ to practice with.

I did commit to training, still do it....but it's not up to you or anyone else to assume people are just irresponsible because they dont meet your comfort level of training or attitude. It's a *right*.

Great! The people who live in a state have the right to regulate arms in their state. That's what the second amendment states.

There's a huge difference between trying to argue what the concealed carry policy should be and what the concealed carry policy MUST be.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
States and communities are 2 very different things which you keep avoiding. And I dont think NYC should have different gun laws than the rest of the state.

States supersede localities. If a state law or constitutional amendment says that all communities must have the same cc permit policies, then I think that's constitutionally correct. If they don't and each community has a different set of restrictions, then I think the constitution supports that.

We aren't arguing if any of that is a good idea, only if the constitution allows it.

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Summerwind said:
When I was cc'd in Vancouver WA before moving to Idaho, I went through training and a background check. Now is that because it was a police officer down the street who assisted me in getting cc'd or was it the law? That I can't say for sure. I assumed it was the law. Nonetheless, there's never a harm in requiring people who legally want to be able to operate a deadly machine in a public place to take a test to show reasonable knowledge of the laws, the policies, and the operation of said machine.

The problem is that it is discriminatory....and that discrimination against a very basic right.

Training costs money. *Mandatory* training can be very expensive and every state is different, but some cost hundreds of dollars. The training requirements are different in each state and no one agrees on how much is enough...there's no evidence that 'mandatory' training prevents anything. Because most people acquire training on their own, in different ways. Of course, everyone agrees that training is a good idea, just not if it must be mandated...there's no evidence supporting it.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

Summerwind · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
The problem is that it is discriminatory....and that discrimination against a very basic right.

Training costs money. *Mandatory* training can be very expensive and every state is different, but some cost hundreds of dollars. The training requirements are different in each state and no one agrees on how much is enough...there's no evidence that 'mandatory' training prevents anything. Because most people acquire training on their own, in different ways. Of course, everyone agrees that training is a good idea, just not if it must be mandated...there's no evidence supporting it.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

That's a ridiculous and convoluted argument of the extreme right wing nutjobs. Bless your heart.

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
Great! The people who live in a state have the right to regulate arms in their state. That's what the second amendment states.

There's a huge difference between trying to argue what the concealed carry policy should be and what the concealed carry policy MUST be.

WHere does it say that?

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.

We are well beyond getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube. Well regulated applied to the militia which meant that it needed to be well supplied and trained - at the time they had plenty of folks to do the training but lacked the arms, thus the people having arms was an asset not taken lightly. The SCOTUS realized in past decisions that a right of the people is not a right of the people in the militia.

I agree that the SCOTUS does not make laws but is our only means to ensure that the laws made do not violate the constitutional rights and powers defined.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

Lursa said:
WHere does it say that?

It's probably a good idea to read some of the case law regarding the full text of the second amendment.
Annotated Constitution Prototype

Lursa · May 5, 2014

Summerwind said:
That's a ridiculous and convoluted argument of the extreme right wing nutjobs. Bless your heart.

I'm a liberal Democrat, bless your heart. And I've participated in several discussions on this on gun forums and the bold statement is factual.

Here's the only study that anyone came up with, coicidentally, quite local:

WA state requires no training at all and is a SHall-issue state.
OR requires training and is a May-issue state.

WA has a larger population and a larger urban population. (and a higher number of permits)
OR has a higher number of gun-related accidents and incidents.

This isnt about crime...crime has nothing to do with permits or training.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
We are well beyond getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube. Well regulated applied to the militia which meant that it needed to be well supplied and trained - at the time they had plenty of folks to do the training but lacked the arms, thus the people having arms was an asset not taken lightly. The SCOTUS realized in past decisions that a right of the people is not a right of the people in the militia.

I agree that the SCOTUS does not make laws but is our only means to ensure that the laws made do not violate the constitutional rights and powers defined.

Totally agree. So now we have to make a distinction between laws we don't like, and laws that are unconstitutional. All reasonable people accept the need for some regulations. And once you're there, you need a test to determine when a particular law is no longer a reasonable restriction.

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
Totally agree. So now we have to make a distinction between laws we don't like, and laws that are unconstitutional. All reasonable people accept the need for some regulations. And once you're there, you need a test to determine when a particular law is no longer a reasonable restriction.

It seems obvious that "may issue" permits cross that line, and very likely that "shall issue" permits do as well. By making any right default to the no right (criminal act?) mode and then requiring taking a class, passing a test and paying a fee to restore it simply converts that right into a state issued privilege.

Mithros · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
It seems obvious that "may issue" permits cross that line, and very likely that "shall issue" permits do as well. By making any right default to the no right (criminal act?) mode and then requiring taking a class, passing a test and paying a fee to restore it simply converts that right into a state issued privilege.

I'd say that the state has a constitutional right to decide how to regulate arms in that state. There are certainly limitations, but deciding what constitutes and undue restriction and what's not an undue restriction should be done very carefully.

ttwtt78640 · May 5, 2014

Mithros said:
I'd say that the state has a constitutional right to decide how to regulate arms in that state. There are certainly limitations, but deciding what constitutes and undue restriction and what's not an undue restriction should be done very carefully.

With 50 to 50K different laws concerning carrying a handgun, interstate travel would be a hit and miss affair. Unlike committing a traffic violation, like not turning on your headlights when operating your wipers (MD law), one may easily face felony charges for simply not knowing how moronic NJ laws are while traveling down I-95. I have encountered much confusion as to how to legally ride a motorcycle while carrying a handgun - it has no locked compartment not accessible to the operator.

Jerry · May 5, 2014

danarhea said:
'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.

Nothing has changed, and so what's to debate?

Lursa · May 5, 2014

ttwtt78640 said:
With 50 to 50K different laws concerning carrying a handgun, interstate travel would be a hit and miss affair. Unlike committing a traffic violation, like not turning on your headlights when operating your wipers (MD law), one may easily face felony charges for simply not knowing how moronic NJ laws are while traveling down I-95. I have encountered much confusion as to how to legally ride a motorcycle while carrying a handgun - it has no locked compartment not accessible to the operator.

He keeps ignoring this. It's an undue burden and impossible to conform to. (And that could be one intention.)

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

Sometimes wrong

Tenacious

Sometimes wrong

Tenacious

Hot Flash Mama

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Hot Flash Mama

Tenacious

Sometimes wrong

Tenacious

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Tenacious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency