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 28th, 2021, 06:34 AM #531
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If that's the case then were back to the other question and that's why would they even take the case knowing that a Peruta-style opinion guarantees another challenge on open carry?
Isn't it possible the question is just re-written to its bare facts, and not that they are going to rule on CCW in a vacuum?
Good thing Young is before the court. IIRC, that is an OC case.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 09:48 AM #532
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 671
The 2A - “open or concealed”

The basic controlling law is not complicated:

(1)
In Heller (2008) Scalia pointed out by quoting Ginsberg that: * “[T]he Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of … defensive action in a case of conflict with another person . .. .” * Note: “upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket.”

(2)
In McDonald (2010) Alito pointed out that: ** “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller . . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense . . . . ** Note: “bear arms for” . . . “self-defense.”

The 2A right to bear "in a pocket" and N.Y.’s right to regulate the method are not seriously debatable. N.Y. has opted for “concealed;” but denies permits for “self-defense.” The SC’s question is - does this violate the 2A? Arguments are rarely decisive (and are often misleading). For sure, all of the Justices understood the fundamental controlling law (Heller/McDonald) and what the arguments would be long before they obviously decided the case while agreeing upon the question.

2A supporters have reason to be optimistic.

Regards
Jack

*Heller: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (syllabus) p. 10 and p. 11
“In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”
**McDonald: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1963369 p. 1, para.1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 10:43 AM #533
delaware_export delaware_export is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,301
delaware_export delaware_export is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,301
Has young been granted cert? Or only petitioning at this point?

Keeping the open and concealed cases separate allows the scotus 2 step to happen… maybe..

Saying you have other options, but ignoring that the state outlaws the other option.

When carrying, aside from open or concealed, what other option is there? (Aside from just don’t…)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
Good thing Young is before the court. IIRC, that is an OC case.
delaware_export is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 02:00 PM #534
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 861
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 861
Small and concealable does not necessarily mean concealed, am I right?
Maestro Pistolero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 04:11 PM #535
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If that's the case then were back to the other question and that's why would they even take the case knowing that a Peruta-style opinion guarantees another challenge on open carry?
Isn't it possible the question is just re-written to its bare facts, and not that they are going to rule on CCW in a vacuum?
I don't think they were envisioning a Peruta style opinion when they took the case. I would like to think the dissent in Young played a factor in the decision, especially in the choice to change the question to focus on concealed carry.

Concealed carry is still an unresolved question given the historical prohibitions identified in Heller. It is also at the heart of the case.

I suspect they changed to question so that concealed carry issue would be better addressed. We will wait and see what happens between now and the oral arguments.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 04:21 PM #536
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjackcooper View Post
The basic controlling law is not complicated:

(1)
In Heller (2008) Scalia pointed out by quoting Ginsberg that: * “[T]he Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of … defensive action in a case of conflict with another person . .. .” * Note: “upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket.”

(2)
In McDonald (2010) Alito pointed out that: ** “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller . . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense . . . . ** Note: “bear arms for” . . . “self-defense.”

The 2A right to bear "in a pocket" and N.Y.’s right to regulate the method are not seriously debatable. N.Y. has opted for “concealed;” but denies permits for “self-defense.” The SC’s question is - does this violate the 2A? Arguments are rarely decisive (and are often misleading). For sure, all of the Justices understood the fundamental controlling law (Heller/McDonald) and what the arguments would be long before they obviously decided the case while agreeing upon the question.

2A supporters have reason to be optimistic.

Regards
Jack

*Heller: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (syllabus) p. 10 and p. 11
“In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”
**McDonald: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1963369 p. 1, para.1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
They have also said in Heller that the right is not unlimited and that concealed carry has been historically prohibited.

Bear certainly includes open or concealed carry, but does the actual right, which Heller acknowledges is not unlimited, include concealed carry? Heller suggests that it may be historically prohibited. That history, and tradition does not seem to be helping in this situation.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 04:33 PM #537
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware_export View Post
Has young been granted cert? Or only petitioning at this point?

Keeping the open and concealed cases separate allows the scotus 2 step to happen… maybe..

Saying you have other options, but ignoring that the state outlaws the other option.

When carrying, aside from open or concealed, what other option is there? (Aside from just don’t…)
Young has not been granted cert, they are currently still petitioning at this point and have yet to be distributed to conference.

There are currently are 601 cases for the next conference (27 Sept) https://certpool.com/conferences
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 04:35 PM #538
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Small and concealable does not necessarily mean concealed, am I right?
The ninth circuit in Young would disagree with you, but I believe most people here would agree with you.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2021, 05:27 PM #539
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,714
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I don't think they were envisioning a Peruta style opinion when they took the case. I would like to think the dissent in Young played a factor in the decision, especially in the choice to change the question to focus on concealed carry.

Concealed carry is still an unresolved question given the historical prohibitions identified in Heller. It is also at the heart of the case.

I suspect they changed to question so that concealed carry issue would be better addressed. We will wait and see what happens between now and the oral arguments.
The court would have to produce those arguments. NY’s position agrees that concealed carry is a viable means of public carry, they just think they can pick and choose who does so.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2021, 11:20 AM #540
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 4,878
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 4,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I don't think they were envisioning a Peruta style opinion when they took the case. I would like to think the dissent in Young played a factor in the decision, especially in the choice to change the question to focus on concealed carry.

Concealed carry is still an unresolved question given the historical prohibitions identified in Heller. It is also at the heart of the case.

I suspect they changed to question so that concealed carry issue would be better addressed. We will wait and see what happens between now and the oral arguments.
How did this distinction of concealed vs. open carry arise in the first place? The second amendment simply says “bear” and it seems to me it shouldn’t matter in what manner one bears a weapon. I would also think the left would prefer, if it’s forced on them, that people carry concealed so they don’t have to be exposed to the sight of the murderous devices.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Member MSI, SAF
NRA certified RSO, Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety
Work hard, shoot straight, play fair, fight dirty
DanGuy48 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 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service