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 April 26th, 2021, 06:28 PM #301
Uncle Duke's Avatar
Uncle Duke Uncle Duke is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not Far Enough from the City
Posts: 8,257
Uncle Duke Uncle Duke is online now
Senior Member
Uncle Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not Far Enough from the City
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwos View Post
I think you're naive about how SCOTUS decides issues. This maximalist all or nothing stuff is not going to work there. If you disagree, well, keep masturbating about that national constitutional carry that no SCOTUS ever would sign off on.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk
You can think whatever you'd like.

The question is simple. It has an answer. Yes, or no?

But for many, enough of the circle jerkoffs. Shit, or get off the pot.
Uncle Duke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 06:30 PM #302
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 278
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Duke View Post
How big is the question of whether or not a state can license a right? Seems pretty narrow a question to me. Has a yes or no answer. Ain't no thinkin thing, as the song goes. And if the answer is no, as I for one believe it should be, then all of the other of today's bullshit that follows becomes moot.

Freedom of speech? Of the press? Of religion? Against self incrimination? Any
licenses with these?

Do constitutional carry states have it wrong presently? Does a future SCOTUS decision with a starting point that is seemingly accepting of licensing, open the door in today's free states to Pandora's Licensing box tomorrow?

DUMB? I don't think there's anything DUMB about what is being questioned.
They can't and it has already been settled by the SCOTUS.

U.S. Supreme Court
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 06:30 PM #303
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by MigraineMan View Post
It's not the application for a permit that's at issue, it's the denial ... presumably because it's subjective.

NYSRPA: New York prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS: Hey, New York, what constitutes "proper cause?"

NY: It's whatever we decide it is.

(Brian Frosh: <watching webcast> YEAH!)
The best I heard was In the 3 judge panel’s Young hearing. Hawaii’s attorney said plaintiffs didn’t make a proper showing. Judge O’Scannlain shot back saying “what showing?” The tone said it all.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:08 PM #304
mikem623 mikem623 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Carney
Posts: 30
mikem623 mikem623 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Carney
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
You guys are losing the focus.

The court is going to decide wether the 2A extends beyond ones own doorstep. The manner of carry is not the primary argument.
Believe that your assumption is correct. As for the mode of carry, one may believe that the Libs in Annapolis would be horrified with the sight of open carry firearms. Then Canceled Carry would more acceptable to Snowflakes then the sight of a gun.
mikem623 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:12 PM #305
SWO Daddy SWO Daddy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,040
SWO Daddy SWO Daddy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Probably because of the possibility of the court getting packed with liberals and they feel the need to answer a riddle, that is really not a riddle, for the gun community that can't seem to wrap it around their heads, that carrying concealed firearms can be prohibited by the state. Just as they clearly indicated in the Heller decision. Now it's a possibility that the court could determine that a state can require a license application for the concealed carry of firearms but that they can't do that for open carry. There is really nothing stopping them from working in open carry in that way and it would settle the issue before the court packing happens.
It's a very good bet the only reason Heller had that language was because of Supreme Court justices who aren't needed any longer to count to 5 (Roberts, Kennedy).

They always had 4 votes supporting a right to carry case; they could have taken your suggested route any time since Heller, but they chose to wait until ACB was seated.
SWO Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:15 PM #306
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem623 View Post
Believe that your assumption is correct. As for the mode of carry, one may believe that the Libs in Annapolis would be horrified with the sight of open carry firearms. Then Canceled Carry would more acceptable to Snowflakes then the sight of a gun.
Keep in mind NY is not playing the open carry angle, just like DC and even the dissent in Wrenn.
They may be catching on that playing that angle is playing with fire.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:21 PM #307
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,209
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 12,209
Do we know it was four conservatives who voted for cert?
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:28 PM #308
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 5,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam View Post
Do we know it was four conservatives who voted for cert?
No, and we may never know unless a justice spills the beans when they retire.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:31 PM #309
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 278
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by MigraineMan View Post
It's not the application for a permit that's at issue, it's the denial ... presumably because it's subjective.

NYSRPA: New York prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

SCOTUS: Hey, New York, what constitutes "proper cause?"

NY: It's whatever we decide it is.

(Brian Frosh: <watching webcast> YEAH!)
Ok, lets say they decide that NY can't deny a license/application to someone that wants to exercise their right to self-defense. Because in reality what it is, is a license tax, the state can charge whatever they want in license fees, being that it's a proper taxing power. New York can then require $2500 for a carry license with $1,000,000 of liability insurance coverage to boot. It would be ridiculous to believe that the SCOTUS is going to overturn precedent on a states licensing/taxing powers, so that's totally possible and would require another case be brought up to challenge the issue. We're talkin' years down the road on this. So, what good would that be to the millions of Americans this ruling could effect? And they've also muddled the waters with a fundamental right that can now be licensed, because in Murdock v Penn, they said just the opposite is true. That's not good for the 2nd Amendment at all. I wish you guys would wake up and smell the coffee, but at this point, I'd say it's too little too late, with the court packing that WILL, happen.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2021, 07:33 PM #310
Cal68 Cal68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 1,211
Cal68 Cal68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by MigraineMan View Post
Trying to get my head wrapped around the differences. Gonna put them side-by-side for comparison -
Original:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Narrowed:
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The original seems to challenge the licensing construct. The narrowed question applies focus on the reason for the denial, and not the licensing structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
You guys are losing the focus.

The court is going to decide wether the 2A extends beyond ones own doorstep. The manner of carry is not the primary argument.
Many thanks to the two of you for simplifying the issue so that this non-lawyer could understand the nuance of what SCOTUS agreed to take on today. I was delighted when I first heard the news but when I started going through this thread, I was wondering if the news was as good as I thought it was. Now I feel like I better understand what the Justices are going to decide. Thanks guys/gals.

Cal68
__________________
NRA Life Member
UT, FL and VA Concealed Carry
MD HQL and Designated Collector
Cal68 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)
cdstraw, newmuzzleloader
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 07:47 AM.


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