Fox123
Ultimate Member
With no public comment unlike Peruta
Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:
TOLD.
YOU.
SO.
The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.
Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.
Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:
TOLD.
YOU.
SO.
The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.
Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.
Because there were some who were so smug, so confident, so incredibly certain that they were right in their belief that "Heller says that open carry is the only protected mode" that they even went so far as to accuse Clarence Thomas of a personal agenda (due to his dissent in Peruta's denial of cert) in order to justify their claim that SCOTUS would grant cert in this case:
TOLD.
YOU.
SO.
The courts are political animals. What the Constitution says doesn't matter to them. Even what they previously said doesn't matter to them. They will issue decisions (or, in this case, refuse to issue decisions) as they please. For this court as regards the 2nd Amendment, "as they please" is limited to cases where a poor downtrodden woman is attempting to carry a nonlethal weapon.
Only a change to the composition of the Court will change outcomes from it, and only because that is how you change institutional political behavior.
YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol. You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.
I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.
YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol.
You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...
Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.
I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.
I'd say just donate it to whichever pro-2A organization you believe will help the most. We need all the help we can get. Unless we get substantial help soon, the 2nd Amendment is dead and buried. With the Court behaving as it is now, my bet is that even a law requiring one to keep a trigger lock on their unloaded gun at home would see denial of cert of its challenging case, because a firearm would be involved.
YOu son-of-a-mother fuuu...Just kinding, lol. You win and it is a very sad day indeed. Unless of course, with the right to carry outside the home not being established and declared a right as of yet, that they are viewing his concealed carry license(a contractual agreement with the state) as a waiver of right to open carry...Though, I know that seems pretty far fetched, the first conference denial and no dissent from denial makes me think that is a reasonable assertion. At this point, with the Peruta denial, they are essentially indicating that there is no right to carry outside the home...Which is a ridiculous proposition.
I forgot where you wanted that $50 to go...Let me know and there was another guy also....Maan, kangaroo justice rules the day.
You're right, it is indeed a ridiculous proposition, but the fact that 4 of the "justices" don't think there is any right to own any firearm whatsoever for any purpose makes it not a shock that 5 won't agree there is a right to carry open or concealed outside the home.
I would not read too much into the denials. While I believe the Peruta argument was technically correct (legislature can determine whether open or concealed), they failed to argue why concealed carry is part of the right. Norman failed to understand that there may be reasons why one or the other may be prohibited.
The 5 justices likely to vote for the case have specifically stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" I am not sure why you think otherwise.
There's quite a lot of room between the right to carry "any weapon in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and the right to carry in general.
The 5 justices likely to vote for the case have specifically stated "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" I am not sure why you think otherwise.
(emphasis mine)
Which other rights are ones that are completely void save for specific protections the Supreme Court has explicitly created (here, protection against complete bans on handguns and stun guns, limited only to the home)? Thus far, that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment right is, if the interpretation of the lower courts is indeed correct.
Put another way, it appears the courts are reading the above as meaning "the 2nd Amendment right protects no weapons, no manners of carry, and no purposes for those weapons, save for keep of handguns (and, now, stun guns) in the home". Is this the interpretation you are using here?
Which other rights are equivalent in that regard?
No individual right survives when it is measured against public safety. It is not typically an issue with the other rights because they generally do not implicate public safety the way the 2A does. So long as you see the right as a pure individual right with no implications to society you will find it is not much of a right.
I believe that I am both an individual and a member of public and that my individual safety is part of the public safety. Denying the collective of the individual is denying the public of its safety. The government is certainly not going to provide my safety.
FL does not interfere with the right in general. It simply states that it must be done concealed as opposed to open.
No individual right survives when it is measured against public safety.
It is not typically an issue with the other rights because they generally do not implicate public safety the way the 2A does. So long as you see the right as a pure individual right with no implications to society you will find it is not much of a right.
I believe that I am both an individual and a member of public and that my individual safety is part of the public safety. Denying the collective of the individual is denying the public of its safety. The government is certainly not going to provide my safety.
That is absolutely not true. For example, the 4th Amendment certainly implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding stop and frisk, for example). The 1st Amendment implicates public safety (look at the decisions regarding shutting down a speaker because some listeners "might" become violent). The 8th Amendment implicates public safety. You might be able to see a more direct relationship with the 2nd, but that doesn't mean that public safety is never an issue with every other Constitutional right.