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

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 19th, 2017, 12:56 PM #831
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,054
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,054
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
Nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 01:02 PM #832
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,447
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
A manner must be allowed, "Bear arms" can mean either! If one is disliked, the other must be allowed.

The middle of the road stance: albeit regulated, pass a background check and whallah - carry permit. Bad guys still not allowed to have guns.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 02:03 PM #833
Fox123's Avatar
Fox123 Fox123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rosedale, MD
Posts: 2,725
Fox123 Fox123 is offline
Senior Member
Fox123's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rosedale, MD
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
If it is specific to handguns great.


If it's just arms then MD will argue it is already allowed with rifles and shotguns.
Fox123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 09:46 PM #834
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 205
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Heller was not a CCW case, so it did not say CCW is not part of 2A.
Well, machine guns and shot-barrel shotguns had nothing to do with Heller and it was concluded, in Heller, that there was no right to possess them under the 2nd Amendment....Thank you Alan Gura.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
He said there was historical precedent and that Heller does not conflict with it.
He, as in Scalia, never said that. Please quote where you think he said that in Heller...Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
There is a valid reason that CCW is part of 2A and was demonstrated by the Peruta 3 judge panel. It was over tuned by the en banc panel because Peruta failed to address the historical prohibition.
Not true, the en banc decision overturned the panel because Heller said a MAJORITY of 19th century courts have prohibited concealed carry under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues. So obviously, Scalia thinks the majority wins the argument on concealed carry and so did the en banc panel..Otherwise, why even mention that when Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Historically only criminals would carry concealed. Today is different. Even the police carry concealed. The historical precedent really says don't let criminals carry arms.
When Norman v Florida gets briefed up to the SCOTUS and open carry without a license wins the day. States will then allow, concealed carry in the same fashion to better meet modern time carry preferences. Peruta will have certiorari denied.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 02:21 AM #835
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 481
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Well, machine guns and shot-barrel shotguns had nothing to do with Heller and it was concluded, in Heller, that there was no right to possess them under the 2nd Amendment....Thank you Alan Gura.

He, as in Scalia, never said that. Please quote where you think he said that in Heller...Thanks.

Not true, the en banc decision overturned the panel because Heller said a MAJORITY of 19th century courts have prohibited concealed carry under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues. So obviously, Scalia thinks the majority wins the argument on concealed carry and so did the en banc panel..Otherwise, why even mention that when Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.

When Norman v Florida gets briefed up to the SCOTUS and open carry without a license wins the day. States will then allow, concealed carry in the same fashion to better meet modern time carry preferences. Peruta will have certiorari denied.
This is what SCOTUS has said on the matter (holding 2 Heller)
Quote:
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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
There is no mention of machine guns or short barreled shotguns in the holding of Heller. The best that can be said is that the dicta does not support the overturning of the NFA.

The actual limits of the amendment are not specified all we really know is that it is not unlimited. With respect to CCW cases all we really know is that they have been upheld in the past. It specifically mentions them as examples. These past cases create the historical precedent.

Heller was the first case to perform a historical analysis. The only reason that CCW cases are mentioned is that it is part of the historical analysis.

The en banc panel said "Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public." Post 6 contains more of the quote. It does not say Heller said it. It simply says historical precedent (sources)

I am not sure why you think Norman is any different than any of the other cases. It is an individual right that was curtailed due to public safety. I created a list of many of them, where lawyers lost due to public safety. Apparently I left Norman off the list although I listed etc to indicate that it was not an exhaustive list. It will likely get passed over by SCOTUS since this happens to all individual rights.

You happen to be wrong about Caetano. SCOTUS never said MA violated the 2A. It said you could not used the excuse that an arm never existed in 1791 as a reason to uphold the law. MA simply decided to concede the case instead of retrying the case.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 06:07 AM #836
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 205
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
There is no mention of machine guns or short barreled shotguns in the holding of Heller. The best that can be said is that the dicta does not support the overturning of the NFA.
You are completely wrong here.

" M16 and the like " and " like the short-barrel shotgun in Miller "


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The actual limits of the amendment are not specified all we really know is that it is not unlimited. With respect to CCW cases all we really know is that they have been upheld in the past. It specifically mentions them as examples. These past cases create the historical precedent.
This is exactly why the 9th concluded that concealed carry is not a right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Heller was the first case to perform a historical analysis. The only reason that CCW cases are mentioned is that it is part of the historical analysis.
Right...And in a light that illustrates that it can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues. "


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The en banc panel said "Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public." Post 6 contains more of the quote. It does not say Heller said it. It simply says historical precedent (sources)
Right...And with the blessing of Hellers historical analysis in a light that concealed carry can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues."...Which is why they will not take Peruta for review.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am not sure why you think Norman is any different than any of the other cases. It is an individual right that was curtailed due to public safety. I created a list of many of them, where lawyers lost due to public safety. Apparently I left Norman off the list although I listed etc to indicate that it was not an exhaustive list. It will likely get passed over by SCOTUS since this happens to all individual rights.
Norman was actually damaged under Florida statute. If there is no personal damage to ones rights, the SCOTUS will not take the case. The only other actual damage while exercising ones right to self-defense was Caetano...And amazingly, the SCOTUS gave it review.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
You happen to be wrong about Caetano. SCOTUS never said MA violated the 2A. It said you could not used the excuse that an arm never existed in 1791 as a reason to uphold the law. MA simply decided to concede the case instead of retrying the case.
Actually, I never said " MA violated the 2A". That's right, MA can't use that analogy to prohibit an arm in common use...Not to difficult to read between the lines on this...Which means it's protected under the 2nd Amendment just like Scalia stated in Heller...." in common use " And stun-guns are in common use.

Peruta will get certiorari denied and Norman will get a grant.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 06:58 AM #837
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,205
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,205
And I get to keep learning here more and more legal arguments between our legal members. Mabe it should be called the ,"The MSI Circus where lawyers come to do battle against each other"JK I have learned a lot reading in this form. Please keep it up so I may and others may learn more....
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 08:06 AM #838
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,920
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,920
In my completely non legal opinion, I believe it will be open carry that wins the day for us. If it is Norman so be it. We may wish that concealed carry is the "right" but we should all appreciate that history may dictate otherwise. If that ends up being the case the road to shall issue concealed carry should be much smoother once open carry is recognized as a protected right.
boundlessdyad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 12:09 PM #839
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,447
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,447
the NFA and GCA68 arguments, have already been ruled constitutional.

Only the Hughes Amendment remains to be challenged.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 12:26 PM #840
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,497
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
the NFA and GCA68 arguments, have already been ruled constitutional.

Only the Hughes Amendment remains to be challenged.
It was, in US v Stewart in 2003. It was GVR'ed in light of Raich.
Wikipedia page on the case
Kharn 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 -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service