Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44
  1. #1
    Plinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sellersburg
    Posts
    64

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

    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....les/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)

  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by chipbennett View Post
    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 testicular fortitude.
    FIFY
    NRA Instructor/Dormant U.S.Marine/ NRA Benefactor-Life

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mgderf View Post
    FIFY
    That, too.

  5. #5
    Grandmaster oldpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Farmland
    Posts
    6,660
    You expected any better from the Ninth Circus?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by oldpink View Post
    You expected any better from the Ninth Circus?
    Right?
    I think only the 4th has been overturned more.
    NRA Instructor/Dormant U.S.Marine/ NRA Benefactor-Life

  7. #7
    Expert gregr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    West-Central
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by dozer13 View Post
    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....les/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".
    If I`m there, it AIN`T a gun-free zone.

  8. #8
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my wife and the bacon are. Anywhere else is not living, just existing.
    Posts
    16,954
    Quote Originally Posted by gregr View Post
    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

    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

  9. #9
    Grandmaster oldpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Farmland
    Posts
    6,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Marksman EPeter213's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Jeffersonville
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    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?


       
    Can haz braaaiiiins?

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •