Jump to content

s0beit

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago, Illinois

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    s0beit

s0beit's Achievements

Member

Member (9/24)

  1. Awesome. I have no intention of OCing but it is great I'll be able to CC while I'm there. I have some conventions I eventually want to attend in LV too, so this will definitely be used.
  2. I was told in another thread that there is a specific license required to carry in the county Vegas resides in. Is this correct? Or will our recognition extend there as well? Hoping I just received false info, would be great to visit family there some day soon.
  3. Now it really was in the mail this time! Applied 4/4/2014 Active 7/11/2014 Recieved 7/14/2014 Long ride!
  4. They already said there is no right to carrying concealed weapons in the Heller case. That is most likely why they haven't taken a case from Gura. They were all licensed concealed carry cases. I think it's time to rethink his frivolous strategy. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008) Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." Didn't Puerta basically agree with that, but say that you have to allow one or the other - open or concealed? Exactly, the key to that decision was the fact that open carry people exercised their right in a rather flagrant fashion, and the CA legislature saw fit to ban the practice. After that, with no open carry and concealed carry being restricted arbitrarily, the 'need' was struck down by the 9th.
  5. http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__May_5_2014/115013621 And it's gone.
  6. Frankly, I thought this was settled in Heller. If the second amendment (as stated in the decision) protects carrying at all, banning carry for those without 'justifiable need' is unconstitutional, you'd think, just as it would be banning all firearms. Am I wrong? How is it not clear? Now, "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues", to me, isn't saying prohibitions in general such as these - but rather 'sensitive places' and 'dangerous and unusual weapons'. Not an outright prohibition on carrying as an act. It also doesn't say carry outright, it says "concealed carry", which doesn't shut the door on open carry. Well, I think the decision (other parts) also says a lot about NFA/Hugues, but that's for another topic, I guess.
  7. I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please. I believe he's talking about this? "The following is the full text of an announcement that was sent by the Criminal Division to the United States Attorneys' Offices upon the passage of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) in the fall of 1996. This provision amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 by banning the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." http://www.justice.g...e9/crm01117.htm Not sure if this is it. EDIT: Also this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 (20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include— (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or ( any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
  8. Is there a list of things prohibited in Chicago? I've tried looking for the bill text, but google is flooded by "Assault weapons ban passed!" news posts, it's hard to find it specifically.
×
×
  • Create New...