"May Issue" case could be headed to Supreme Court

All I see is the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see anything in the constitution restricting how you bear them.

 

Restrictions on concealed carry have been around for a few hundred years or so. Many states that restrict it have to allow open carry.

 

I am still waiting on your curriculum for a training requirement... you know, the one you have no clue about.

 

Well, brand violent felons on the forehead and you will know who is a violent criminal. Simple solution and an element of deterrence.

 

"Banning people from packing heat in public" affects no one but the law-abiding. Criminals committing the "gun violence" are going to be "packing heat" regardless of what the law says. You say "some people don't want their lives and rights endangered by gun violence" and I laugh. Are you seriously so deluded as to think that banning honest citizens' ability to defend themselves from crime somehow makes it harder for criminals to violate the laws they already hold in contempt??

If you're worried about gun violence, then you have the right to act to defend yourself. THAT is the right you have. You do NOT have the right to demand others leave themselves as helpless as you prefer to be.

 

yes, the owner of property can do that. and those who don't like it shouldn't patronize those businesses.

 

And anecdotal evidence shows many Businesses soon take down those signs.
Besides, concealed means they can't see it.
Lots of folks are exempt from obeying those signs, and criminals intent on robbing that Business simply will not obey those signs.

So if the Restaurant gets robbed and no Law abiding people are Armed ??
I would rather eat somewhere else.
It has happened.

 

Right, but those are state level restrictions, which are now questionable thanks to gay marriage and abortion "rights".

I mean, abortion was deemed a right based on the "right to privacy".

I'd like someone to explain how that doesn't mean I can't conceal carry a firearm based on my 2A and "right to privacy" laws.

 

I'd say businesses can only do that if it can be somehow shown to impact other customers shopping experiences.

A concealed firearm is going to do none of those things. Someone running around in ninja gear swinging a sword might though.

 

No necessity will be countenanced.
What will fly is States can set rules for how to carry and typically require training etc. But showing a necessity that's subjective to the sheriff is not going to fly.
The 14th and 2nd should foreclose all this ****ery but damned if these legal realists even read the document.

 

Jaysus, I only did it once... stupid cell phone cameras...anyway...

 

As long as they can prove they are sane, well trained and law abiding

 

Prove you are sane and law abiding...we know you arnen't well trained

 

if you pass the same background check to buy a gun you have proven all you need to prove

 

And, you shouldn't have to even prove that.
Prior restraint.

 

Well, we prefer individual rights to state's rights (either are preferable to federal power)

 

Of course. Private property rights supersede most individual rights.

 

True and why many businesses chose to ban them on property. Here they have to allow transport in a vehicle by law on private property parking.

 

Except that a Business is property with Public access, a Business must reasonably accomodate customers and is licensed to do so, there are many regulations on Business that do not apply to owners of property with no Public access with fences, locked gates, conspicuous signage prohibiting trespass and hunting and firearms.

 

Scalia was no friend of the Second Amendment.

 

Ironically Scalia was the closest friend on the High Court that the 2nd Amendment has.

So you can bet there is no one else with views more pro-2A than he.

So that should tell you that any more favorable 2A ruling are NOT going to happen.

That's simple logic.

 

Two points... First, Scalia was an Originalist; he didn't support political positions regardless of which side they fell if contrary to the Constitution's original provisions...something we are likely to see with Gorsuch. That they aligned with much of the view many of us have regarding the 2A protecting an individual right. Second, many gun rights advocates criticize him for not going far enough with Heller in rendering a majority decision and lending what many, particularly those on the left, see as an opening for some gun controls... but, he made it clear, the Heller case was a narrow point for judication and did not prompt the Court to take a comprehensive study and interpretation of the 2A. Still, the majority ruling established the basis for law that is still reverberating through the court system and is resulting in a significant wave of pro gun rights legislation. As important, in the Heller ruling, and perhaps more important in the long run was established the level of Scrutiny to be applied in rendering decisions. By that measure, most of what many of us, gun rights advocates and Originalists would like to see are more cases submitted to be reviewed against that standard, rather than Court derived partisan legislation. The Constitution is the best document for governance yet derived, in my opinion, and when provisions are counter to the wishes of the governed, contains provisions for amendment... brilliant. It's time to end attempts to bypass it and either follow it's provisions as they are, or follow the provisions to amend it.

 

First and foremost, all such precedent has been struck down by Heller, McDonald, and most recently Caetano which dealt with a woman carrying a weapon outside of the home for her own defense, absent a legal carry permit. The united state supreme court ruled in favor of the individual in that case.

Secondly, there is no evidence that preventing the lawful carry of firearms outside the home, in any way helps public safety. Beyond such, it has been demonstrated that a firearm discharged within the home poses significant risk to anyone that is outside the home, thus making such an argument moot.

Third, under Heller there is a right to keep and bear privately owned firearms for legal and legitimate uses. Simply because home defense was used as an example, does not mean that only home defense is acceptable.

Note how the supreme court went out of its way to address only the carrying of concealed weapons. There was no prohibition on the open carrying of firearms in the cited case. That meant the public was free to carry firearms in public, so long as it was done in a certain manner. A state cannot restrict both forms of carry, it can only restrict one or the other, but it can never restrict both.

 

Thomas is more pro gun than Scalia was. Thomas noted that the Brady bill (which was trimmed down on tenth amendment grounds-the mandate) might well have been a violation of the second amendment but since that wasn't before the court, it wasn't ruled upon

 

Scalia according to one of his most esteemed law clerks-Northwestern Professor of Constitutional law, Steven Calabresi (during the "Taft Lecture, November 2012, U of Cincinnati Law School) that Scalia was a FAINT HEARTED originalist who was aware that most of the new deal cases were abominations but since cowardly conservative justices appointed after FDR died refused to overturn them (as precedent) , it was too late and would cause too much social upheaval to say interpret the commerce clause in a way consistent with the actual words and intent of the founders. that would abolish federal gun control but also get rid of Medicaid, Social Security, Title VII, Title IX etc