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

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 14th, 2017, 02:27 AM #311
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_bud View Post
There is no subsidy for me. I've paid in and paid in and paid in. Doubt that there is a snowball's chance of ever getting what was paid in.
And the government doesn't have to pay you either...Even though you paid a tax upon a tax as if the money was yours.

See: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
There are no property rights to the money you contributed.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2017, 02:29 AM #312
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I've leave it like this. There are people in this world who wish to lower American birthrates and our sovereignty/. By removing God from our nation, promoting abortion, gay marriage and radical feminism they erode our institutions and our American way of life. As the birthrates decline the population becomes more open to immigration and leaders like Barrack Hussein Obama are allowed to give illegals amensty Thus our culture dies off.
The end result? This is all a push for one world government.
Gay marriage promotes their agenda by reducing the birthrates. That's why its the law of the land along with abortion.
Issues that hurt that end goal the elites will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
Agree with that 100% sir.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2017, 07:17 AM #313
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
From Florida's Brief In Opposition:

"What is more, this Court has recently and repeatedly denied certiorari in cases presenting a much more important issue: whether the Second Amendment protects any right to carry firearms outside the home. This case does not supply a good vehicle for resolving that logically antecedent question, which should be addressed before this Court considers the narrower and far less consequential question at issue here."

Florida's attorneys are quite ignorant...The Court denied certiorari to those cases because they afforded no 2nd Amendment protections. Those cases all sought a license to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Oh, they'll address the right to carry outside the home all right. Norman will be that vehicle and appropriately so, as Norman was outside his home while exercising his fundamental right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.
The license is a distinct issue from public carry. SCOTUS' actions (or specifically inactions) make me think licensing is far down the road and will not be part of this case.

Now the state's brief is better than the previous ones, however, what should be pointed out is that those cases which the state is referring to have either A) lost and SCOTUS denied cert (the other CCW cases) or B) can't truly be had with no total carry bans existing now (outside of non-residents).
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2017, 05:47 PM #314
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The license is a distinct issue from public carry. SCOTUS' actions (or specifically inactions) make me think licensing is far down the road and will not be part of this case.

Now the state's brief is better than the previous ones, however, what should be pointed out is that those cases which the state is referring to have either A) lost and SCOTUS denied cert (the other CCW cases) or B) can't truly be had with no total carry bans existing now (outside of non-residents).
Licensing was specifically addressed at the Florida supreme court...It'll be addressed here. The only way to carry a firearm in the exercise of a fundamental right, is by way of a license in Florida. This entails precondition requirements upon a right, which is a violation of substantive due process.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2017, 05:57 PM #315
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
W T F
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 15,009
danb danb is offline
W T F
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 15,009
Neither side asked to court to address licensing, so they wont.
danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2017, 06:17 PM #316
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 667
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...n-express-case

So much for the SCOTUS apologists who claimed that they denied cert on every carry case because of the lack of a split.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2017, 03:51 AM #317
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
Neither side asked to court to address licensing, so they wont.
Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2017, 08:51 AM #318
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...n-express-case

So much for the SCOTUS apologists who claimed that they denied cert on every carry case because of the lack of a split.
There's no 100 percent formula for cert grants. 90 percent plus are taken because of a split.
In this case it may be because the opinion below is so outlandish that it may be a 9-0 smack down.
The carry cases will be a narrow split IMO.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2017, 12:09 PM #319
danb's Avatar
danb danb is offline
W T F
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 15,009
danb danb is offline
W T F
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 15,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
They do not need to get into licensing. No one is challenging the constitutionality of the licensing scheme.
danb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2017, 01:56 PM #320
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 218
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Actually,...they will. The prerequisites for obtaining a license, are part of Florida's public policy reasoning for requiring concealed carry over open carry...Whether they directly discuss them or not, they are a part of it. Norman's position is that those policies, in their totality, violate his right to open carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danb View Post
They do not need to get into licensing. No one is challenging the constitutionality of the licensing scheme.
Is it not possible that SCOTUS might vote in favor of unlicensed open carry as the enumerated right while leaving the prerequisites for the optional licensing concealed carry untouched?
Peaceful John 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 01:03 AM.


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