Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 13th, 2017, 12:26 PM #201
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
You forgot this one:

3. Justice Thomas doesn't seem to have the judicial restraint he should be adhering to as a supreme court justice sitting on the highest court in America.
Ah, but that in itself isn't relevant. Not without a corresponding set of beliefs about what Heller meant.

Now, you might attempt to argue that Thomas "misunderstood" what Peruta was all about and believed it to be a vehicle for securing open carry, but:
  • He most certainly knew that Norman was forthcoming.
  • There was no challenge to the open carry laws in Peruta, and he most certainly knew that.

Combine those together and it means that if Thomas believed of Heller what your position demands, then he would not have penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. He would not have argued for taking that case at all, precisely because of the above things.


Hence, to argue that Thomas penned that dissent while simultaneously aligning with the interpretation of Heller you put forth is to insist that Thomas is incompetent, which is contradicted by the decisions/dissents/concurrences he has written in the past.



Quote:
Peruta had two options to challenge California's deprivation of his 2nd Amendment rights. Challenge the protected right of open carry(per Heller) or challenge the unprotected privilege to conceal carry. But, no, Peruta chooses the privilege to conceal carry and sought a license, and was ok with a supposedly fundamental right being licensed...Not sure how anyone could be ok with that, oh wait,...government brainwashing of its sheeple. Anyway, I'm not sure how one seeks the legal remedy to open carry by seeking a license to conceal carry...Makes no sense to me and obviously it didn't to the astute supreme court justices that would not accept certiorari.
Ah, so you believe that Thomas is incompetent! That is a highly laughable notion in the face of what he has written in the past.


Quote:
October can't come soon enough...Until then my friend, may the winds blow you back on course to the Sea Of Reality.
And you as well, o thou who grasps at straws.

Seriously, though, Norman can't come soon enough. I really do hope they grant cert and decide it the way you believe they will. I'd rather have a solid right to open carry than no right to carry, but it's the latter that is in effect right now.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 09:19 AM #202
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Ah, but that in itself isn't relevant. Not without a corresponding set of beliefs about what Heller meant.

Now, you might attempt to argue that Thomas "misunderstood" what Peruta was all about and believed it to be a vehicle for securing open carry, but:
  • He most certainly knew that Norman was forthcoming.
  • There was no challenge to the open carry laws in Peruta, and he most certainly knew that.

Combine those together and it means that if Thomas believed of Heller what your position demands, then he would not have penned a dissent to denial of cert in Peruta. He would not have argued for taking that case at all, precisely because of the above things.


Hence, to argue that Thomas penned that dissent while simultaneously aligning with the interpretation of Heller you put forth is to insist that Thomas is incompetent, which is contradicted by the decisions/dissents/concurrences he has written in the past.





Ah, so you believe that Thomas is incompetent! That is a highly laughable notion in the face of what he has written in the past.




And you as well, o thou who grasps at straws.

Seriously, though, Norman can't come soon enough. I really do hope they grant cert and decide it the way you believe they will. I'd rather have a solid right to open carry than no right to carry, but it's the latter that is in effect right now.
That won't happen. The anti states will rush to become shall issue concealed carry if open carry is determined to be the right.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 01:19 PM #203
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
SCOTUS docket is up (sorry can't link right now). Response is due August 14th, but don't be surprised if an extension is requested.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 02:20 PM #204
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 414
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 414
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....iles\17-68.htm
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 02:22 PM #205
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,035
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
SCOTUS docket is up (sorry can't link right now). Response is due August 14th, but don't be surprised if an extension is requested.
Case 17-68...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....iles\17-68.htm
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 08:55 PM #206
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
That won't happen. The anti states will rush to become shall issue concealed carry if open carry is determined to be the right.
If the court says that open carry is the only mode that is protected by the 2nd Amendment, then the states can become shall issue in order to minimize the chance that people will carry openly, but at that point they cannot restrict open carry.

More precisely, they can't do that and withstand a court challenge to the restrictions unless the lower courts ignore the Supreme Court's holding -- a distinct possibility, given the propensity of the lower courts to cherry pick verbiage from Supreme Court decisions to reach their predetermined conclusions -- and the Supreme Court refuses the case.

So yes, that can (ahem) open up concealed carry to people who previously couldn't carry concealed, but open carry prohibitions would be off the table at that point.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2017, 03:59 PM #207
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If the court says that open carry is the only mode that is protected by the 2nd Amendment, then the states can become shall issue in order to minimize the chance that people will carry openly, but at that point they cannot restrict open carry.

More precisely, they can't do that and withstand a court challenge to the restrictions unless the lower courts ignore the Supreme Court's holding -- a distinct possibility, given the propensity of the lower courts to cherry pick verbiage from Supreme Court decisions to reach their predetermined conclusions -- and the Supreme Court refuses the case.

So yes, that can (ahem) open up concealed carry to people who previously couldn't carry concealed, but open carry prohibitions would be off the table at that point.
Right, but I guess my point was more that most people (at least in my experience) who would be open carrying at that point would prefer to carry concealed if it was an option, meaning that that they'd do so once the states became shall issue.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2017, 05:29 PM #208
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
Right, but I guess my point was more that most people (at least in my experience) who would be open carrying at that point would prefer to carry concealed if it was an option, meaning that that they'd do so once the states became shall issue.
Oh, I don't disagree with that. Interestingly enough from our standpoint, that's actually very close to the ideal situation (the ideal being that no permit is required for any of it): you can carry concealed or openly at your discretion, and it doesn't matter which you choose.

Ohio shows that open carry as a right can be used to secure concealed carry as a right as well. That doesn't mean that we should have initially gone for open carry out of the gate, but it certainly means that we should be going for open carry now. And we are, fortunately.

It'll be most interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with Norman. If they deny cert, as I expect, then that will make it crystal clear that a composition change is a necessity for any further relief. It will mean that, in the absence of a favorable composition change at the Supreme Court, our ability to secure the right at the judicial level will be completely dead in the water.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 10:38 PM #209
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Oh, I don't disagree with that. Interestingly enough from our standpoint, that's actually very close to the ideal situation (the ideal being that no permit is required for any of it): you can carry concealed or openly at your discretion, and it doesn't matter which you choose.

Ohio shows that open carry as a right can be used to secure concealed carry as a right as well. That doesn't mean that we should have initially gone for open carry out of the gate, but it certainly means that we should be going for open carry now. And we are, fortunately.

It'll be most interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with Norman. If they deny cert, as I expect, then that will make it crystal clear that a composition change is a necessity for any further relief. It will mean that, in the absence of a favorable composition change at the Supreme Court, our ability to secure the right at the judicial level will be completely dead in the water.
Wait, what happened in Ohio? And I agree with the cert petition. I think we're screwed until Kennedy and/or Ginsburg are replaced.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2017, 11:29 PM #210
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
Wait, what happened in Ohio? And I agree with the cert petition. I think we're screwed until Kennedy and/or Ginsburg are replaced.
Ohio had a law forbidding concealed carry. No permit was available, even on a "may issue" basis. The law contained a few "affirmative defense" exceptions, all which as a practical matter resulted in arrest of the person in question -- he could only use the defense later in court. The law was challenged in Klein v Leis, which was decided in 2003 by the Ohio supreme court. It upheld the prohibition on the (implied) basis that open carry was allowed (since it contended that the law merely regulated the manner of carrying). Shortly thereafter, a number of open carry "defense walks" were performed as a means of protesting the law. And shortly after that, the legislature passed a "shall issue" concealed carry permit law.

A case upholding open carry could easily yield the same result in states like California, especially if a concerted effort to lawfully carry firearms openly were to occur. But it would have to happen under conditions where the legislature would have no real legislative alternative but to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law. Which is to say, there would have to be no alternative legislation available for the legislature to pass that would effectively prevent such actions. If some other more malevolent legislative means of preventing open carry exists, the legislatures in rights-hostile states will obviously go that direction instead.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 11:21 AM #211
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Ohio had a law forbidding concealed carry. No permit was available, even on a "may issue" basis. The law contained a few "affirmative defense" exceptions, all which as a practical matter resulted in arrest of the person in question -- he could only use the defense later in court. The law was challenged in Klein v Leis, which was decided in 2003 by the Ohio supreme court. It upheld the prohibition on the (implied) basis that open carry was allowed (since it contended that the law merely regulated the manner of carrying). Shortly thereafter, a number of open carry "defense walks" were performed as a means of protesting the law. And shortly after that, the legislature passed a "shall issue" concealed carry permit law.

A case upholding open carry could easily yield the same result in states like California, especially if a concerted effort to lawfully carry firearms openly were to occur. But it would have to happen under conditions where the legislature would have no real legislative alternative but to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law. Which is to say, there would have to be no alternative legislation available for the legislature to pass that would effectively prevent such actions. If some other more malevolent legislative means of preventing open carry exists, the legislatures in rights-hostile states will obviously go that direction instead.
Ahh, interesting, thanks.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 04:30 PM #212
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 183
I believe that if a majority of gun owners would open carry after Norman comes down in our favor....That states would soon allow constitutional carry or in other words, concealed carry without a permit. This is where the gun organizations need to come together on this, as it's going to be a one shot deal. If we get people running to get shall issue permits when the states start giving them out like candy, constitutional carry will never happen in those states.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 04:42 PM #213
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I believe that if a majority of gun owners would open carry after Norman comes down in our favor....That states would soon allow constitutional carry or in other words, concealed carry without a permit. This is where the gun organizations need to come together on this, as it's going to be a one shot deal. If we get people running to get shall issue permits when the states start giving them out like candy, constitutional carry will never happen in those states.
Perhaps, although I have heard some leftists thinking that less will carry if OC is the only method allowed, not to mention they will try to make more off limits areas which will be more likely enforced if guns are visible.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:42 PM #214
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 197
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Perhaps, although I have heard some leftists thinking that less will carry if OC is the only method allowed, not to mention they will try to make more off limits areas which will be more likely enforced if guns are visible.
I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?
Peaceful John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 11:55 PM #215
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?
Yes, but the Republicans had an advantage, in that the Democrats did not have a veto proof majority. If they did, I have no doubt that they would have instituted the same may issue/no issue scheme the other deep blue states have. Since the 7th Circuit decision invalidated the law, people could carry with just an FOID if the legislature did nothing. The Republicans refused to vote for any concealed carry law that was not reasonable (i.e. shall issue and without too many ridiculous exclusions), knowing that if the Democrats refused to go along, they'd have essentially permitless carry.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2017, 11:52 AM #216
stm stm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 54
stm stm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
I'm hazy on this, but weren't these options (open carry / off limits) available to Illinois? Then they voted in concealed carry?
No, open carry was (and still is) illegal in Illinois. What made Illinois ripe for a lawsuit was the complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home, open or concealed.

The 7th CA really didn't address the open vs. concealed issue, other than to say that a complete ban was unconstitutional.

The anti-gun faction of the IL General Assembly did not have a supermajority to pass any carry law they wanted. There were many pro-gun bluedog democrats who voted for the carry bill, and eventually overrode Gov. Quinn(D) on his amendatory veto.

A shall-issue concealed carry law was part of the many compromises to get us statewide preemption of all handgun laws.

Our goal in Illinois was never OPEN carry, or CONCEALED carry, but simply the RIGHT TO CARRY.
stm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2017, 02:40 AM #217
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

3 weeks before the due date, the state of FL has waived its response. The test now will be if SCOTUS requires a response.

I was hoping that FL would reply and cite the heck out of Wrenn
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2017, 04:56 AM #218
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 992
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 992
Mabe they are hoping that SCOTUS will deny cert in the case... If they grant cert then FLA will be in a world of hurt ....
motorcoachdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2017, 09:09 AM #219
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 414
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....lic/17-68.html

3 weeks before the due date, the state of FL has waived its response. The test now will be if SCOTUS requires a response.

I was hoping that FL would reply and cite the heck out of Wrenn
According to an empirical analysis of cert procedures http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf this happens in 80% of the cases. In only about 200 does SCOTUS request a response. While the request for grant in paid cases makes it 4 times more likely to grant, the overall rate is still very low (>85% of paid cases rejected)
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2017, 01:45 PM #220
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
According to an empirical analysis of cert procedures http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/...2_Wachtell.pdf this happens in 80% of the cases. In only about 200 does SCOTUS request a response. While the request for grant in paid cases makes it 4 times more likely to grant, the overall rate is still very low (>85% of paid cases rejected)
It's admittedly a pretty low bar. I haven't seen Scotus NOT ask for a response in a 2A case other than Embody's.

press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service