NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    First of all, there was no state in Wrenn as it is a DC case. Additionally DC did not license the activity. That was the whole point of the case, to force DC to grant licenses. IE allow concealed carry.

    Actually they did license carry, just did it on a may issue basis.
    There was the Palmer case a few years before which did force them to create a license as they had banned carry after Heller. You may be thinking about that case.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    You are partially correct and partially incorrect. You are missing the dichotomy of the statement. The conceptual aspects stay the same, but the specific details change with time.

    That's no different than my second version of the understanding of the right, which incorporates the reasoning behind it.

    And yes, that's actually the version that I believe is accurate. Rights are really principles applied to the real world. The scope of the right at any given point in time is what you'd get when you apply the principles behind the right to the world as it exists at the time of its application.

    When the Court said that the scope of the right is enshrined with the scope it was understood to have at the time of its adoption, I believe they clearly intended that to be the principles behind the right. Which is to say, the principles themselves are what are actually enshrined. To argue otherwise is to argue that rights are actually trivialities (the Court calls such an argument one that is "bordering on the frivolous"), that they cannot withstand the test of time because things change over time.


    During the 18th century, the right was limited to only the arms that were in existence at the time. Today the right includes those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, which would increase the scope of the right.

    You could say it that way, but you have to be really careful in doing so. I would say it slightly differently. The exercise of the right was limited to only the arms that were in existence at the time. The right itself always applies to all arms, even those that are just a twinkle in someone's eye.


    Even the underlying concept is not exactly correct as we know that concealed bearable arms were not part of the right.

    They were certainly treated as if they weren't part of the right. But does that really make them not part of the right?


    Different rights often have different boundaries. Originalists believe the boundaries of a right are defined at the time of incorporation/founding.

    It probably depends on the originalist. Undoubtedly some think that way, but to think that way is to trivialize the right, if you're talking about the actual operative boundaries as opposed to the principles behind those boundaries.


    That is exactly how the boundaries of the right appear to be defined. The "weapons protected were those 'in common use'" There is also a "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'"

    Right, but note that here we have to separate "keep" from "bear". While there was a historical tradition against carrying of "dangerous and unusual" weapons, that does not extend to ownership of such weapons. See below.


    You seem to miss the dichotomy of a right. While the point is to limit what society can do with respect to the right, no right is absolute.

    I don't know why you keep raising this point. The very fact that the right has a defined scope automatically means it's not absolute, at least in the face of other rights. Which is to say, when you have a collision between rights, only one can win for any given thing.

    But that's the extent of it. Rights override everything that isn't a right. They cannot be rights otherwise.


    There are limits to what is really protected and what is not. While Nazi marches may be protected, fighting words are not.

    That is true but it misses the point. The point is that popularity or lack thereof is not what defines the boundaries of a right. If it did, then there would be no point in saying that something is a right in a "majority rules" society, because that which is popular would automatically be allowed whilst that which is unpopular would automatically be subject to prohibition.


    Based on the historical understanding of the 2A, arms that are common are protected and those that are unusual are not.

    That may be with respect to "bear", but it is most certainly not the case with respect to keep. And this is so because a prohibition on a weapon cannot bootstrap itself into Constitutionality just because the government manages to get around to banning that particular weapon before it gets the chance to become common.

    Moreover, to argue that the citizenry cannot even own "dangerous and unusual" weaponry is to argue the absurd, because it is precisely with such weaponry that the founders won their liberty in the first place. The argument that the founders believed it appropriate to ban ownership of the very weapons they used to win their liberty with, because they were "dangerous and unusual", is the height of absurdity. But that's exactly what one has to argue if one is to argue that it is appropriate to ban ownership of "dangerous and unusual" weaponry, even today, because the principles behind the scope of the right are unchanging.

    Remember the explicitly stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to ensure that the militia has sufficient capability in arms to maintain the security of a free State. This means the militia must be able to overcome the government in the event the government becomes a tyrannical force, because failure to do so means failure to maintain the security of a free State. And while one might argue that possession of such weaponry poses risks to the public, remember that when it came to the choice between life and liberty, the founders chose liberty. We know this because they started killing people in order to secure their liberty, and risked their own lives in the process. The 2nd Amendment's scope encodes that choice. It must. It is oxymoronic to argue otherwise, particularly since the right protected by the 2nd Amendment supersedes the original English right. And that is so precisely because the founders of the country intentionally and explicitly broke away from England. It is their understanding, not the understanding of the English that preceded them, which controls.


    Based on why concealed carry was prohibited, I am not sure that common/unusual refer to numerical numbers. They seem to reflect societal standards with respect to what is "rational and appropriate".

    Precisely. It is the reasoning behind the scope of a right which properly propagates through time. This is true of all rights I'm aware of.


    This is consistent with how our side argues carry cases. The legislature is free to determine the appropriate method of carry as long as the people can carry.

    That is far too arbitrary a standard, and in any case it's also incorrect. The whole point of the scope of the right is to define what the legislature can and cannot do. While that may be how we're arguing cases, I submit that we're arguing them incorrectly. What matters is whether or not the principles which define the scope of the right are being properly applied. Legislatures are largely arbitrary creatures because societal norms are largely arbitrary things. But rights aren't arbitrary, and never should be defined as such. And yet, by claiming that the scope of the right is defined by the legislature (which is really what is being said when one claims that the legislature can "choose" what to prohibit), one is making the scope of the right arbitrary.


    "reasonable for the circumstances" is not the specific standard the court uses. I was trying to illustrate that there are analogous 1st amendment limitations when they are appropriate for the circumstances. Parades require permits, but protesting on the sidewalk does not. Most speech is protected, but fighting words are not. The greater the societal impacts, the more likely there will be some kind of restriction on the right.

    That's true as far as it goes, but it's not arbitrary. Or, at least, I argue strongly that it is improper for it to be arbitrary.
     

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    "The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument is granted."

    So as I understand it, the court gave the gun banners (SG + NY) 5 extra minutes.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824

    III
    Recognizing that the Constitution protects the right to carry arms in public does not mean that there is a “right to . . . carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 626. “The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment . . . are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation.” Voisine v. United States, 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 17). States can impose restrictions on an individual’s right to bear arms that are consistent with historical limitations. “Some laws, however, broadly divest an individual of his Second Amendment rights” altogether. Ibid. This case gives us the ideal opportunity to at least begin analyzing which restrictions are consistent with the historical scope of the right to bear arms.

     It appears that a handful of States throughout the country prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the carrying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.” Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 666. The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment. Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 655 (internal quotation marks omitted).7 By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. See Gould, 907 F. 3d, at 677; Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, at 101; Drake, 724 F. 3d, at 440; Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d, at 460.

     “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘important matter’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in conflict.’ ” Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc., 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1) (quoting this Court’s Rule 10(a)). The question whether a State can effectively ban most citizens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.


    Justice Thomas did write this but Justice Kavanaugh did not concur with part II
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    That's no different than my second version of the understanding of the right, which incorporates the reasoning behind it.

    And yes, that's actually the version that I believe is accurate. Rights are really principles applied to the real world. The scope of the right at any given point in time is what you'd get when you apply the principles behind the right to the world as it exists at the time of its application.

    When the Court said that the scope of the right is enshrined with the scope it was understood to have at the time of its adoption, I believe they clearly intended that to be the principles behind the right. Which is to say, the principles themselves are what are actually enshrined. To argue otherwise is to argue that rights are actually trivialities (the Court calls such an argument one that is "bordering on the frivolous"), that they cannot withstand the test of time because things change over time.




    You could say it that way, but you have to be really careful in doing so. I would say it slightly differently. The exercise of the right was limited to only the arms that were in existence at the time. The right itself always applies to all arms, even those that are just a twinkle in someone's eye.




    They were certainly treated as if they weren't part of the right. But does that really make them not part of the right?




    It probably depends on the originalist. Undoubtedly some think that way, but to think that way is to trivialize the right, if you're talking about the actual operative boundaries as opposed to the principles behind those boundaries.




    Right, but note that here we have to separate "keep" from "bear". While there was a historical tradition against carrying of "dangerous and unusual" weapons, that does not extend to ownership of such weapons. See below.




    I don't know why you keep raising this point. The very fact that the right has a defined scope automatically means it's not absolute, at least in the face of other rights. Which is to say, when you have a collision between rights, only one can win for any given thing.

    But that's the extent of it. Rights override everything that isn't a right. They cannot be rights otherwise.




    That is true but it misses the point. The point is that popularity or lack thereof is not what defines the boundaries of a right. If it did, then there would be no point in saying that something is a right in a "majority rules" society, because that which is popular would automatically be allowed whilst that which is unpopular would automatically be subject to prohibition.




    That may be with respect to "bear", but it is most certainly not the case with respect to keep. And this is so because a prohibition on a weapon cannot bootstrap itself into Constitutionality just because the government manages to get around to banning that particular weapon before it gets the chance to become common.

    Moreover, to argue that the citizenry cannot even own "dangerous and unusual" weaponry is to argue the absurd, because it is precisely with such weaponry that the founders won their liberty in the first place. The argument that the founders believed it appropriate to ban ownership of the very weapons they used to win their liberty with, because they were "dangerous and unusual", is the height of absurdity. But that's exactly what one has to argue if one is to argue that it is appropriate to ban ownership of "dangerous and unusual" weaponry, even today, because the principles behind the scope of the right are unchanging.

    Remember the explicitly stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to ensure that the militia has sufficient capability in arms to maintain the security of a free State. This means the militia must be able to overcome the government in the event the government becomes a tyrannical force, because failure to do so means failure to maintain the security of a free State. And while one might argue that possession of such weaponry poses risks to the public, remember that when it came to the choice between life and liberty, the founders chose liberty. We know this because they started killing people in order to secure their liberty, and risked their own lives in the process. The 2nd Amendment's scope encodes that choice. It must. It is oxymoronic to argue otherwise, particularly since the right protected by the 2nd Amendment supersedes the original English right. And that is so precisely because the founders of the country intentionally and explicitly broke away from England. It is their understanding, not the understanding of the English that preceded them, which controls.

    Precisely. It is the reasoning behind the scope of a right which properly propagates through time. This is true of all rights I'm aware of.

    That is far too arbitrary a standard, and in any case it's also incorrect. The whole point of the scope of the right is to define what the legislature can and cannot do. While that may be how we're arguing cases, I submit that we're arguing them incorrectly. What matters is whether or not the principles which define the scope of the right are being properly applied. Legislatures are largely arbitrary creatures because societal norms are largely arbitrary things. But rights aren't arbitrary, and never should be defined as such. And yet, by claiming that the scope of the right is defined by the legislature (which is really what is being said when one claims that the legislature can "choose" what to prohibit), one is making the scope of the right arbitrary.

    That's true as far as it goes, but it's not arbitrary. Or, at least, I argue strongly that it is improper for it to be arbitrary.

    I did not claim you were totally wrong, only "partially incorrect."

    I have to repeatedly bring up the fact that rights are not absolute because many here including yourself don't seem to understand it. Stating that
    Rights override everything that isn't a right. They cannot be rights otherwise.
    is arguing from an absolute position. There are limitations to our rights and I even provided examples.

    "Dangerous and unusual" is not really arbitrary. You don't seem to grasp what it really means. I have stated that it is not really a numerical number yet you proceed to tell me it is not about popularity, which is about numerical numbers. What is absurd is to think that "weaponry that the founders won their liberty in the first place" is somehow unusual. What is absurd is to think that the arms that the government uses is somehow unusual.

    There are social standards. We created chemical weapons, yet today we have decided that they are inappropriate to use in society. In the past we decided that concealed carry was inappropriate, yet today we do not. Things like this can change depending on social standards.

    What cannot change is the ability of the people to keep and bear common arms for appropriate purposes.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Not really, it is a hard question because it depends on how you define what is best. There are a number of amici that add small parts of the issue. From an amici stand point that is good. The problem I see is that no one really directly addressed the question presented (Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.) The briefs are more about carry in general and don't really explain why concealed carry is now part of the right given the historical prohibitions.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket....13 FINAL NYSRPA v. Corlett Opening Brief.pdf
    Petition for NYSRPA

    Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and a surety could be demanded only upon proof of “reasonable cause” to
    believe someone was going to abuse that right

    These decisions have, of course, been “sapped of authority by Heller.” Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 658. They are no more helpful to determining whether carry bans violate the Second Amendment than cases
    decided before Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71

    New York’s restrictive licensing scheme cannot be reconciled with that guarantee. Because “the [Second] Amendment is for law-abiding citizens as a rule, … it must secure gun access at least for each typical
    member of that class.” Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 665. Yet, in contrast to the constitutionally compliant norm in the vast majority of the country, the default in New York is that law-abiding citizens may not carry
    handguns for self-defense; that exercise of a fundamental constitutional right is instead a crime.
    ..
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474

    I am not sure if you agree or disagree. None of what you quoted explains why concealed carry is part of the right. It is the same problem that Peruta had. There is no explanation as to why the historical prohibitions on concealed carry should be disregarded.

    NYSRPA should be filing their reply brief tomorrow so we sill see how they might respond to these historical prohibitions which is one of the main arguments the respondents (Bruen/NYS) are presenting.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    I am not sure if you agree or disagree. None of what you quoted explains why concealed carry is part of the right. It is the same problem that Peruta had. There is no explanation as to why the historical prohibitions on concealed carry should be disregarded.

    NYSRPA should be filing their reply brief tomorrow so we sill see how they might respond to these historical prohibitions which is one of the main arguments the respondents (Bruen/NYS) are presenting.

    I may left this part out. And yes there is an explaination: Both are from DC v Wrenn Court of Appeals. You should know this information.
    Do a search in this pdf for prohibition and one for scope and one for core. There is more than enough information on historical prohibitions.



    And under Heller I, “complete prohibition” of Second
    Amendment rights are always invalid. Id. at 629. It’s appropriate to strike down such “total ban” without bothering to apply tiers of scrutiny because no such analysis could ever sanction obliterations of an enumerated
    constitutional right. Id.


    The “core” or “central component” of the Second
    Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects “individual
    self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742,
    767-78 (2010) (internal quotation mark omitted), by “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 635—
    though subject to certain “longstanding” regulations that limit
    the Amendment’s scope, such as bans on possession “by felons
    and the mentally ill,” id. No one doubts that under Heller I this
    core protection covers the right of a law-abiding citizen to keep
    in the home common firearms for self-defense.

    T]he Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits . . .
    declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home. .

    We pause to draw together all the pieces of our analysis:
    At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the
    home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not
    bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the
    Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s
    good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to
    sink this law under Heller I
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I may left this part out. And yes there is an explaination: Both are from DC v Wrenn Court of Appeals. You should know this information.
    Do a search in this pdf for prohibition and one for scope and one for core. There is more than enough information on historical prohibitions.

    There really is not an explanation. Wren did the same thing the plaintiffs did, which is sidestep the issue. The issue is framed around not being able to carry in general. They ignored the fact that concealed carry has been historically prohibited in their reasoning why the law violates the 2A.

    I am not sure that is the best tactic given the question presented is specifically about concealed carry.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    There really is not an explanation. Wren did the same thing the plaintiffs did, which is sidestep the issue. The issue is framed around not being able to carry in general. They ignored the fact that concealed carry has been historically prohibited in their reasoning why the law violates the 2A.

    I am not sure that is the best tactic given the question presented is specifically about concealed carry.

    No Explanation! And 2 DC Court of Appeals judges- Griffith & Williams sidestep the issue. Really? Historical prohibitions in their reasoning why the law violates the 2A?
    In my humble opinion, just a old-man law abiding citizen with presumably good reasoning see the landscape.

    https://concealedguns.procon.org/history-of-concealed-guns/
    On Oct. 23, 2014 the District of Columbia began accepting concealed carry permit applications, [86] [87] and is now officially a may-issue area for concealed handgun permits. [88]

    On Nov. 21, 2020, the Crime Prevention Research Center stated, “There were 2.7 million concealed handgun permit holders in 1999, 4.6 million in 2007, 8 million in 2011, 11.1 million in 2014, and now 19.48 million in 2020,” however, “ixteen states have adopted constitutional carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.” [9
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    No Explanation! And 2 DC Court of Appeals judges- Griffith & Williams sidestep the issue. Really? Historical prohibitions in their reasoning why the law violates the 2A?
    In my humble opinion, just a old-man law abiding citizen with presumably good reasoning see the landscape.

    https://concealedguns.procon.org/history-of-concealed-guns/

    Yes, no explanation, two judges sidestepped the issue of historical prohibitions on concealed carry. The third judge cited this historical prohibition on concealed carry as one of the reasons they would decide the case differently.

    The issue is not whether concealed carry should be allowed, it is about how to address the historical prohibitions. Ignoring them is not the best way to address them.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Yes, no explanation, two judges sidestepped the issue of historical prohibitions on concealed carry. The third judge cited this historical prohibition on concealed carry as one of the reasons they would decide the case differently.

    The issue is not whether concealed carry should be allowed, it is about how to address the historical prohibitions. Ignoring them is not the best way to address them.

    I would read the Wrenn dissent again. I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that she dissented based on concealed carry. Her whole dissent was based on public carry in general not being part of the “core” therefore it could be heavily regulated. This is more proof IMO that concealed carry is not the issue here.

    Plaintiffs are only allowed to write so much. NY isn’t making the case that concealed carry isn’t part of the right, so why spend a lot of time dwelling on that? Other than the Peruta opinion decried by Thomas and Gorsuch what other cases recently made a big deal about the issue?
    I can name 3 that didn’t-Wrenn, Moore , and Norman
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I would read the Wrenn dissent again. I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that she dissented based on concealed carry. Her whole dissent was based on public carry in general not being part of the “core” therefore it could be heavily regulated. This is more proof IMO that concealed carry is not the issue here.

    Plaintiffs are only allowed to write so much. NY isn’t making the case that concealed carry isn’t part of the right, so why spend a lot of time dwelling on that? Other than the Peruta opinion decried by Thomas and Gorsuch what other cases recently made a big deal about the issue?
    I can name 3 that didn’t-Wrenn, Moore , and Norman

    Wrenn v DC dissent pg 3 said:
    in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”

    This certainly seems like one of the reasons cited as to why public carry was not part of the "core" and therefore could be heavily regulated.

    Brief for Respondents pg 20 said:
    One historical limit is the government’s latitude to restrict the carrying of concealable weapons in public places. More than a century ago, this Court stated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897). And Heller gave as a first “example” of the Second Amendment’s historical limits the “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons” that were upheld by “the majority of the nineteenth-century courts to consider the question.” 554 U.S. at 626;

    It seems like they are arguing that concealed carry is not part of the right.

    I think it is a big issue because of the question presented.
    Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
    It was specifically changed to address concealed carry. I believe you need to actually answer the question presented and not talk around the question.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    I don't think you actually ever answered my question from way back (and perhaps it wasn't you but a different open-carry-only guy so forgive me).

    That is, which justices, in your opinion, would be the ones to rule in NYSRPA that open carry is the right, regardless of the current state of the law?

    Keep in mind the Peruta and Rogers dissents. I'll await your answer.

    Plaintiff's sought and signed an application for a license to carry concealed firearms, so open carry is off the table.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    NYSRPA did not waive their right, they chose not to challenge the ban on open carry. They challenged the denial of the concealed carry license just like Peruta.

    They signed an application to carry concealed firearms, which isn't the protected right. So in essence, they waived their right to challenge them on open carry, which is the protected right.


    Norman did not waive his right either. You do not waive your rights when you apply for a license.

    You need to go study some more. Certain rights are most definitely waived when that application for, ANY license, is signed on the dotted line.

    Why don't you open carry without a license?

    Funny thing is, even if financed by someone else, you certainly wouldn't do that. I actually told Alan Korwin at a Phoenix gun show that I would do just that back in the mid 90's. He had just told me he was rubbing elbows with Justice Thomas at some event in DC. Yet, when I told him, I would go anywhere and open carry without a license if he could set it up with one of the big gun clubs, he went directly to, oh, well, yeah, I can't really help you with that. I was living in my truck back then, so no need for financing for my living expenses. You can't even get retired chest pounding gun rights guys, who could spend 10yrs in jail without worry of their finances, to ever do that. Had someone with kahuna's taken a machine gun case soon after the Miller case, we wouldn't be where we're at with semi-auto's. But if you finance me $3000 a month while I'm sitting in jail on an open carry charge, and finance the case all the way to the SCOTUS, I'll walk down the middle of Time Square open carrying a, home built holstered handgun.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,238
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom