Al Norris
Spud Head
I think that all the various CC cases are cases to establish that the right includes carry outside the door frame of your house. There are tangential issues in these cases.
But the issue of "Shall Issue" is one of degree. On the surface is the amount and manner of regulating carry (the bearing of arms, for offensive or defensive action for self defense, should the need arise) a government can have. The deeper issue is that we do have that right to carry.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment secures the "right to keep and bear arms" and was not only an individual right, but that it encompassed two distinct objects of that right. That a person had the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2793 (2008) (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
“[T]he core right identified in Heller [is] the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.” United States v. Chester, __ F.3d __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *26 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 2010).
Numerous State Constitutional right to arms provisions have likewise been interpreted as securing the right to possess and carry a gun, albeit subject to some regulation. Not just the four cases quoted by Scalia in Heller.
See, e.g. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840); State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (1840); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871); In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 210 (Or. 1984); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988); Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990).
Yes, there is a danger that one or more of these cases will not go in our favor, even at the Circuit Court level. This is part of the strategy, however. The deliberate splitting of the circuits where the SCOTUS will have to resolve the split.
The gamble is that our case(s) will reach SCOTUS before a bad criminal case(s) does. That, IMO, is the real danger.
But the issue of "Shall Issue" is one of degree. On the surface is the amount and manner of regulating carry (the bearing of arms, for offensive or defensive action for self defense, should the need arise) a government can have. The deeper issue is that we do have that right to carry.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment secures the "right to keep and bear arms" and was not only an individual right, but that it encompassed two distinct objects of that right. That a person had the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2793 (2008) (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
“[T]he core right identified in Heller [is] the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense.” United States v. Chester, __ F.3d __, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26508 at *26 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 2010).
Numerous State Constitutional right to arms provisions have likewise been interpreted as securing the right to possess and carry a gun, albeit subject to some regulation. Not just the four cases quoted by Scalia in Heller.
See, e.g. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840); State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (1840); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871); In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 210 (Or. 1984); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988); Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990).
Yes, there is a danger that one or more of these cases will not go in our favor, even at the Circuit Court level. This is part of the strategy, however. The deliberate splitting of the circuits where the SCOTUS will have to resolve the split.
The gamble is that our case(s) will reach SCOTUS before a bad criminal case(s) does. That, IMO, is the real danger.
