Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 13th, 2017, 01:26 PM #201
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
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, 10:19 AM #202
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
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, 02:19 PM #203
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,064
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,064
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, 03:20 PM #204
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 568
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 568
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....iles\17-68.htm
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2017, 03:22 PM #205
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,721
krucam krucam is offline
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 7,721
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, 09:55 PM #206
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
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, 04:59 PM #207
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
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, 06:29 PM #208
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
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, 11:38 PM #209
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 691
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 17th, 2017, 12:29 AM #210
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,245
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
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 -4. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service