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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 13th, 2021, 03:45 PM #811
Bob A's Avatar
Bob A Bob A is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,308
Bob A Bob A is online now
Senior Member
Bob A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by camo556 View Post
Hopefully all of you are following Stephen Halbrook's posts on volokh conspiracy. https://reason.com/people/stephen-halbrook/
Thanks for the link. Today's post demonstrates the racist origins of licensing and carry bans. Democrats were racists ever.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by alucard0822 View Post
Big difference between "will use violence to impose my political beliefs on others" and "will use violence to defend myself from those imposing their political beliefs on me". The former is the main ingredient of genocide, the latter is the only thing that has ever prevented it.
The Hand That Signs The Paycheck Rules The World

Originally Posted by Deep Lurker:
Quote:
Disclaimer: “No criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.”
Bob A is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2021, 05:46 PM #812
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.



Quote:
And under Heller I, “complete prohibition[s]” of Second
Amendment rights are always invalid. Id. at 629. It’s appropriate to strike down such “total ban[s]” without bothering to apply tiers of scrutiny because no such analysis could ever sanction obliterations of an enumerated
constitutional right. Id.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. .
Quote:
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
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13th, 2021, 11:03 PM #813
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
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.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2021, 09:47 AM #814
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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/his...oncealed-guns/
Quote:
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, “[s]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
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2021, 02:17 PM #815
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
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/his...oncealed-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.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2021, 04:50 PM #816
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
NYSRPA posted their reply brief

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ef%20FINAL.pdf
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2021, 05:22 PM #817
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,828
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2021, 06:49 PM #818
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenn v DC dissent pg 3
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brief for Respondents pg 20
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.
Quote:
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.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2021, 12:23 AM #819
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 307
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2021, 12:49 AM #820
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 307
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
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.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (3 members and 1 guests)
flintstone, jac43k, jcutonilli
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 03:58 PM.


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