Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • dozer13

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 17, 2017
    69
    6
    Sellersburg
    Found this Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
    {dont know the site/cant speak for its content or political leanings}

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

    Indiana no longer requires "good cause" for LTCH, but might be nice to see how Neil Gorsuch weighs in on the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment." {Its like they were reading an entirely different document than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}


    The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.

    (I didn't see a thread on this I'm sure there is older ones on the original case/if it is dupe please close)
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    The Supremes need to hear Peruta. I'm starting to doubt that they'll ever give Peruta cert. They don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude.
     

    gregr

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 1, 2016
    4,300
    113
    West-Central
    Found this Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
    {dont know the site/cant speak for its content or political leanings}

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

    Indiana no longer requires "good cause" for LTCH, but might be nice to see how Neil Gorsuch weighs in on the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment." {Its like they were reading an entirely different document than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}


    The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.

    (I didn't see a thread on this I'm sure there is older ones on the original case/if it is dupe please close)

    I`m still waiting for someone to explain how there is the slightest bit of ambiguity in : "shall not be infringed".
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I`m still waiting for someone to explain how there is the slightest bit of ambiguity in : "shall not be infringed".

    Thats easy, Greg. Prisoners. Mentally ill (specifically homicidal psychosis, for example.)
    There is no exception in the Constitution for them, is there? Do you support the RKBA for them as well?

    My question is rhetorical, of course, but if you don't support those people being armed, you don't support the absolute, uninfringed, as-written RKBA. The point is not to call you out on that or any other point, only to illustrate that that's how we get there; any exception at all to the written text calls into question the possibility of others.

    We, of course, understand the difference...or do we? There are some on our side who might even champion those people's rights. Many do, even after they are released.

    I can't totally condemn either position. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    oldpink

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2009
    6,660
    63
    Farmland
    Thats easy, Greg. Prisoners. Mentally ill (specifically homicidal psychosis, for example.)
    There is no exception in the Constitution for them, is there? Do you support the RKBA for them as well?

    My question is rhetorical, of course, but if you don't support those people being armed, you don't support the absolute, uninfringed, as-written RKBA. The point is not to call you out on that or any other point, only to illustrate that that's how we get there; any exception at all to the written text calls into question the possibility of others.

    We, of course, understand the difference...or do we? There are some on our side who might even champion those people's rights. Many do, even after they are released.

    I can't totally condemn either position. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    IOW, the whole "due process of the law" point.
     

    EPeter213

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 4, 2016
    1,128
    83
    Floyd/Harrison
    Thats easy, Greg. Prisoners. Mentally ill (specifically homicidal psychosis, for example.)
    There is no exception in the Constitution for them, is there? Do you support the RKBA for them as well?

    My question is rhetorical, of course, but if you don't support those people being armed, you don't support the absolute, uninfringed, as-written RKBA. The point is not to call you out on that or any other point, only to illustrate that that's how we get there; any exception at all to the written text calls into question the possibility of others.

    We, of course, understand the difference...or do we? There are some on our side who might even champion those people's rights. Many do, even after they are released.

    I can't totally condemn either position. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    IMHO possession of a gun should not constitute a crime, regardless of who you are. I can understand increased penalties for crimes committed with a fire-arm, but why make it a crime by itself?
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    IOW, the whole "due process of the law" point.

    Hmm. I thought I sent it earlier, but maybe not.

    Yes, but that's a 5A thing, and while the Constitution is to be taken as a whole, not as a "cafeteria style", take-what-you-want thing, I was specifically addressing his 2A point of "Shall not be infringed", being absolute.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Hmm. I thought I sent it earlier, but maybe not.

    Yes, but that's a 5A thing, and while the Constitution is to be taken as a whole, not as a "cafeteria style", take-what-you-want thing, I was specifically addressing his 2A point of "Shall not be infringed", being absolute.

    Blessings,
    Bill


    It took me a LONG time to realize that no right is 100% absolute. This is due to all of us having to live in close proximity to one another.

    For example, we all have the right to freedom of speech, but not on a bullhorn in the middle of your neighborhood at 2:30AM when everyone needs to sleep.

    There will always be some extremely minimal intrusion on rights in order to keep all the kids in the sandbox happy, except for those who think they own the whole sandbox.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    Thats easy, Greg. Prisoners. Mentally ill (specifically homicidal psychosis, for example.)
    There is no exception in the Constitution for them, is there? Do you support the RKBA for them as well?

    My question is rhetorical, of course, but if you don't support those people being armed, you don't support the absolute, uninfringed, as-written RKBA. The point is not to call you out on that or any other point, only to illustrate that that's how we get there; any exception at all to the written text calls into question the possibility of others.

    We, of course, understand the difference...or do we? There are some on our side who might even champion those people's rights. Many do, even after they are released.

    I can't totally condemn either position. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    I think the whole 'prisoners' argument against an absolute reading of the 2A is flawed in that they forfeited their rights by abusing them. Prohibition on carrying inside jails/prisons by law abiding staff or visitors makes that case better. However, the burden of proof of need and effectiveness vs infringing individual liberty, is on the government before they can legitimately make regulations like that. The problem seems to be that many in--and out of--government think that regulatory authority means they don't have to make that case.
     

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    37,669
    113
    NWI, North of US-30


    It took me a LONG time to realize that no right is 100% absolute. This is due to all of us having to live in close proximity to one another.

    For example, we all have the right to freedom of speech, but not on a bullhorn in the middle of your neighborhood at 2:30AM when everyone needs to sleep.

    There will always be some extremely minimal intrusion on rights in order to keep all the kids in the sandbox happy, except for those who think they own the whole sandbox.

    Regards,

    Doug

    The freedom on speech is freedom AGAINST the .GOV shutting you up. Meaning you do not need a permit to be on your bullhorn saying down with the .gov.

    You can do that whenever you want, anywhere you want.
    What gets you in issues is making noise at 2am in your hood when everyone else is sleeping. Then its not that your freedom of speech is being supresed its that you are making noise whenever all else do not want noise.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon


    It took me a LONG time to realize that no right is 100% absolute. This is due to all of us having to live in close proximity to one another.

    For example, we all have the right to freedom of speech, but not on a bullhorn in the middle of your neighborhood at 2:30AM when everyone needs to sleep.

    There will always be some extremely minimal intrusion on rights in order to keep all the kids in the sandbox happy, except for those who think they own the whole sandbox.

    Regards,

    Doug

    I don't think that is a good example. Disallowing the use of a bullhorn does not deny one the ability to exercise the right of free speech. After all, one can still speak at the chosen place and time. And, under the principle of prior restraint, even unlawful uses of the exercise of free speech rights cannot be preemptively prohibited. The exercise of free speech rights must take place first, in order then to be acted upon.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    This also is a 5A argument. "...without due process of law..." and like Doug, it took me a while to understand, then to accept that. Be that as it may, the fact is that the 2A in and of itself, does not make allowances for any individual to not have the RKBA. I don't disagree with you, but again, I was addressing the specific statement.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    I think the whole 'prisoners' argument against an absolute reading of the 2A is flawed in that they forfeited their rights by abusing them. Prohibition on carrying inside jails/prisons by law abiding staff or visitors makes that case better. However, the burden of proof of need and effectiveness vs infringing individual liberty, is on the government before they can legitimately make regulations like that. The problem seems to be that many in--and out of--government think that regulatory authority means they don't have to make that case.
     

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    This also is a 5A argument. "...without due process of law..." and like Doug, it took me a while to understand, then to accept that. Be that as it may, the fact is that the 2A in and of itself, does not make allowances for any individual to not have the RKBA. I don't disagree with you, but again, I was addressing the specific statement.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    I agree, our opinions are close.

    The distinction I wanted to make is that:

    1)rights are out-of-bounds-markers on gov't authority, not priviledges that gov't might--or might not--condescend to grant us.

    2)rights and responsibility are a package deal. Therefore minors don't have a RKBA or the right to vote and criminals and the insane lose them.

    Principles 1&2 are the envelope that both constrain what the gov't can do in the name of "due process" and set the limits on the 2A or any other right.

    The 2A doesnt' exist independently of the rest of the body of law so just because it doesn't explicitly say so, it doesn't mean that #2 doesn't apply.
     
    Last edited:

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    I don't think that is a good example. Disallowing the use of a bullhorn does not deny one the ability to exercise the right of free speech. After all, one can still speak at the chosen place and time. And, under the principle of prior restraint, even unlawful uses of the exercise of free speech rights cannot be preemptively prohibited. The exercise of free speech rights must take place first, in order then to be acted upon.
    FWIW I think his analogy is fine. The limit he's putting on free speech is not on speech per se or on having and using a bull horn, it's just on using the bullhorn at 2:30AM. Until someone does that, and disturbs others, there is no offence and no place for official action. The prior restraint lies prohibiting disturbing the peace and no action takes until that's done.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I'm not sure I agree with you on point #2. Do minors have a right to defend themselves, if attacked? If so, then to say they have no RKBA is fallacious. They are disallowed the exercise of that right under US law, yes, but the right still exists. There has been no due process of law to remove their lawful access to that right, either. The insane and the criminals, however, you are correct. The problem at least with the criminal, is that once he has "paid his debt to society", he must still continue to "pay" in some peoples' minds, by the continued restriction again based on the paradigm that if it is law, it must be right. At some point, he should be "made whole" again.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    I agree, our opinions are close.

    The distinction I wanted to make is that:

    1)rights are out-of-bounds-markers on gov't authority, not priviledges that gov't might--or might not--condescend to grant us.

    2)rights and responsibility are a package deal. Therefore minors don't have a RKBA or the right to vote and criminals and the insane lose them.

    Principles 1&2 are the envelope that both constrain what the gov't can do in the name of "due process" and set the limits on the 2A or any other right.

    The 2A doesnt' exist independently of the rest of the body of law so just because it doesn't explicitly say so, it doesn't mean that #2 doesn't apply.
     
    Top Bottom