Jeckler Posted April 14, 2017 at 03:16 PM Share Posted April 14, 2017 at 03:16 PM http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4 For the layman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 14, 2017 at 03:26 PM Share Posted April 14, 2017 at 03:26 PM :Crying. =-(: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted April 14, 2017 at 04:37 PM Share Posted April 14, 2017 at 04:37 PM I hate reading anything that doesn't allow comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted April 14, 2017 at 05:47 PM Share Posted April 14, 2017 at 05:47 PM The article was mostly correct, but their interpretation of the "militia" clause was way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted April 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM Share Posted April 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM As the 7th Curcuit noted it is absurd to think "bearing arms" was only permitted in the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 15, 2017 at 01:45 AM Share Posted April 15, 2017 at 01:45 AM What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right? - Richard Allen Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted April 15, 2017 at 02:14 AM Share Posted April 15, 2017 at 02:14 AM Don't forget that this is about the right to carry *concealed* firearms in public. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 15, 2017 at 12:11 PM Share Posted April 15, 2017 at 12:11 PM Case was rescheduled again. FWIW, other cases continually rescheduled seem to end up with "something" happening, like a dissent (or concurrence) from denial, or the court grants cert.So it seems "something" is happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted April 16, 2017 at 03:40 PM Share Posted April 16, 2017 at 03:40 PM Case was rescheduled again. FWIW, other cases continually rescheduled seem to end up with "something" happening, like a dissent (or concurrence) from denial, or the court grants cert.So it seems "something" is happening here.It's certainly plausible that they were waiting for Gorsuch to get through the Senate. Now that he's in, he's gotta get up to speed on life on the court while also going over every case pending cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted April 17, 2017 at 07:21 AM Share Posted April 17, 2017 at 07:21 AM http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-carrying-concealed-weapons-in-public-supreme-court-2017-4 For the layman.... Layman? The origin of the story is Bloomberg's gun propaganda organ: "the trace".... I was sickened to see it sneaking and twisting it's way in here. Their ("The Trace") whole idea is to include subtle twisting in the story, trying to appear "factual" but still the (anti) twist. In seeing this, Bloomberg's strategy is confirmed.He wants more and more quotes coming back to propaganda organs he controls.People are supposed to be subtly irritated after reading them.Not "hit you over the head with a 2 x 4 propaganda" which isn't effective - instead a slow erosion of the foundations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 18, 2017 at 11:58 PM Share Posted April 18, 2017 at 11:58 PM Yes ! And I found that I was overcome by an irresistible urge to drink a Slurpee Super Big Gulp - but only out of tiny Dixie cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 19, 2017 at 01:08 PM Share Posted April 19, 2017 at 01:08 PM Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemikos Posted April 19, 2017 at 03:12 PM Share Posted April 19, 2017 at 03:12 PM What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right? - Richard Allen Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - Well, maybe Posner doesn't... 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 19, 2017 at 04:20 PM Share Posted April 19, 2017 at 04:20 PM Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions.Per Curiam ala Caetano would be interesting. They don't like to take on 2A cases, and Per Curiam orders would be a way to take care of them with no fanfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 20, 2017 at 02:03 PM Share Posted April 20, 2017 at 02:03 PM Per Curiam ala Caetano would be interesting. They don't like to take on 2A cases, and Per Curiam orders would be a way to take care of them with no fanfare.Problem with a GVR (grant certiorari, vacate judgment, remand) order and its accompanying per curiam order a la Caetano is that (in that case) it doesn't much guidance to the lower court. Basically slaps their hand, sends it back down and (knowing CA9) they will reach the exact same conclusion as the en banc Court reached. That would be dangerous on their part as, knowing CA9, they'll take forever and a second Trump nominee may end up seated on SCOTUS before it comes back up the flagpole. Thomas may be drafting a dissent from denial as he seems to be on a textualist crusade lately. Dissected in a 7-1 ruling that those exonerated by reversal of their convictions, stating that the Colorado Exoneration Act is a civil process rather than criminal and that it is entirely constitutional to require individuals to go to a judicial venue and prove their own innocence...after their convictions have been vacated. In order to recover lost wages, lost...whatever from the time they were incarcerated. Since the constitution affords no protection in civil proceedings. That's some STRICT originalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted April 26, 2017 at 08:53 PM Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 08:53 PM "The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting. Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner: “It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921). Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional. Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:00 PM Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:00 PM "The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting. Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner: “It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921). Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional. Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. CaliforniaThat is not "clearly" what Thomas thinks. He qualified the statement with "if reasonable," and simply used that as an example to differentiate regulation from prohibition. But Charles Nichols can't read an opinion without it "clearly" saying that concealed carry isn't a right. Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:15 PM Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:15 PM "The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting. Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner: “It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921). Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional. Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California And of course, a big reason we saw these bans on cheap pocket pistols was to keep freedmen and other "undesirables" disarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:20 PM Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:20 PM Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows.It's been rescheduled even before Gorsuch was sworn in. Someone on the court must be wanting his vote. Would they hold things up just for him to sign off on a dissent, or do they think with Gorsuch they can take the case outright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:24 PM Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:24 PM Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity. There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutsidr Posted April 28, 2017 at 03:13 AM Share Posted April 28, 2017 at 03:13 AM Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity. There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court. You say "Fortunately...concealed carry is not a right under the Second..." I fully support those who want open carry to be recognized universally, and I certainly see your arguments that concealed carry might not be directly protected by the 2A. However, I just can't understand why you could seem happy that concealed carry was shut down. I'm in favor of maximizing all of our rights, enumerated, recognized, or just a pipe dream. Not scoffing at every thing that is not my own pet project. You are arguing AGAINST the very things those on this site are fighting for. I'll return to the rock I crawled out from under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Nichols Posted April 29, 2017 at 10:00 PM Share Posted April 29, 2017 at 10:00 PM Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity. There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court. You say "Fortunately...concealed carry is not a right under the Second..." I fully support those who want open carry to be recognized universally, and I certainly see your arguments that concealed carry might not be directly protected by the 2A. However, I just can't understand why you could seem happy that concealed carry was shut down. I'm in favor of maximizing all of our rights, enumerated, recognized, or just a pipe dream. Not scoffing at every thing that is not my own pet project. You are arguing AGAINST the very things those on this site are fighting for. I'll return to the rock I crawled out from under. Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here." After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted April 30, 2017 at 03:16 PM Share Posted April 30, 2017 at 03:16 PM There it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoffsoft Posted April 30, 2017 at 04:21 PM Share Posted April 30, 2017 at 04:21 PM Well, he was never really hiding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted May 1, 2017 at 09:01 PM Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 09:01 PM Peruta wasn't on the orders list, so a relist is likely on the way. They're interested in it for one reason or another........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:00 PM Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:00 PM Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity. There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.You must know that CA9 will use that same flawed logic to conclude that OC isn't a right under the 2A as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:05 PM Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:05 PM Nothing is a right unless the almighty Ninth Circuit issues a formal decree stating that it is a right, or that it is not or is no longer a right. Disclaimer: the Ninth Circuit reserves the right to alter your rights at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, with no notice. Have a nice day. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:37 PM Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 10:37 PM Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here." After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand.Cliff notes please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoffsoft Posted May 2, 2017 at 12:09 AM Share Posted May 2, 2017 at 12:09 AM I don't think there is a Cliff's Notes version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted May 2, 2017 at 12:26 AM Share Posted May 2, 2017 at 12:26 AM Who's Cliff ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.