CCRKBA says SCOTUS ruling should open National reciprocity

[Gryphon]

Here's a beautiful quote from the decision:

The Nation’s courts are open to in- jured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

Sure, it sounds great, but disingenuous when SCOTUS needs to grant certiorari to an injured/harmed individual under 2A before this can happen and they continually decline. For some reason we just aren't "special" enough! Stuff like this makes me more convinced that certain Justices are actually complicit in an effort deprive - not protect - our enumerated 2A rights.

 

[Uncle Duke]

I cringe when I hear the words "common sense" nowadays. In combination, arguably the two most twisted and bastardized words in the English language.

Seems the word of the hour in this country today is "feel". God only knows what the SCOTUS may apply.

 

[mxrider]

As Gryphon stated, the biggest hurdle here is getting SCOTUS to grant cert in a case where this ruling can be used to further our cause.

 

[Jaybeez]

we'll know if this has legs if the ca4 panel decides positively for us in the Kolbe case, and cites yesterday's ruling.

remember moving into maryland with a post 2013 ak is no different than having a same sex spouse and moving into a state that banned gay marriage before yesterday. the outcome was the same, you couldnt have either in your new state.

 

[BigSteve57]

I cringe when I hear the words "common sense" nowadays. In combination, arguably the two most twisted and bastardized words in the English language.

Seems the word of the hour in this country today is "feel". God only knows what the SCOTUS may apply.

Yes but it's easy to use that against someone in an argument.

One thing all arguments need, at least successful ones, is agreement on the meaning of terms and nomenclature.

So the next time you're engaged by someone wanting "common sense" anything is to start by defining just what "common sense" means in the context of the argument.

It's also a debating tactic that can work to discredit your opponent and make them look foolish and unprepared. In other words, take every opportunity to derail your opponent and if you can do it before the argument starts, so much the better.

I have used this tactic every time I have heard someone use "common sense" in the context to get my support for something and I have yet to get a decent response. And it wasn't always about guns and gun regulation. The last time I was presented with a “common sense” type of persuasion was in the workplace over a technical issue.

For example, someone at the door soliciting for your support for <whatever>:

DoGooder: Hi my name is Sam/Suzie DoGooder and I have a petition for a "common sense" law for <whatever>.
Me: Well sounds great. I'd like to discuss what your definition of what "Common Sense" means.
[now they are suddenly off the script]
DoGooder: Well, uhhh...
Me:


It seems to me that a “common sense” law would have some or all of the following characteristics:

1. It is being proposed in response to a real tangible problem (I‘ll ask for specifics later)
2. It is clear and easy to understand
3. It is enforceable
4. Its passage will prevent #1 from occurring (I'll ask you to explain how later)
5. Had this law regulation been in place it would have prevented the problem in #1. I'll ask for 3 examples later.
6. It complements existing regulations

[I could think of other points and sometimes I do depending on the situation]
Can we get started defining common sense?
DoGooder: Well uh...
Me: Perhaps you would like to think about it some more?
DoGooder: Well uh…
Me: Bye.

 

[Fox123]

So everyone should get a Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, or Kansas (come July 1st) permit and have it be recognized by the rest of the states.

 

[EL1227]

File this under 'be careful what you wish for' ...

Using SCOTUS logic, I can't wait for a 2A case to be brought before them citing equal protection as justification. But, will they will once again use the same 'means to an end' logic as they applied in Burwell to reject any argument that upholds a succinctly defined constitutional right like the 2nd Amendment.

I don't hold much hope for SCOTUS any more. All but three justices have lost their legal and moral bearing. If a 2A challenge came against the 17 states who aren't 'shall issue', the liberal majority of SCOTUS would perform extra-judicial gymnastics to insure that we are stripped of our constitutional rights forever ... Roberts included.

Read Mark Levin's 1st book ... Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Copy and paste from the closed thread.


I don't want the current court ruling on anything 2A related.

Turncoats in our midst.

Win the 2016 election, have a couple of Liberal judges finally die off, appoint like minded conservatives, and then we can revisit the idea.

As others have stated, carrying without a permit is not a good idea.

 

[JamesH]

I would bet that if a Republican wins in 2016, there are a few retirements announced in November.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I would bet that if a Republican wins in 2016, there are a few retirements announced in November.

Winner Winner-Chicken Dinner.

But they would wait until December or January to make their announcements so it wouldn't look so deliberate.

Family issues. Health issues. Etc.

 

[Blacksmith101]

It is unintended consequences. The liberals wanted gay marriage but the unintended consequence of the decision is opening a door to national concealed carry. This ruling will come back and haunt them because it will be cited in cases the liberals don't want.

 

[mark71211]

Coukd that be a double edged sword with the gun control nuts thinking the samething?

 

[EL1227]

I would bet that if a Republican wins in 2016, there are a few retirements announced in November.

In November ...

Just enough time for Obama's 'parting shot' appointments. The 'newly elected' 'R's wouldn't be in place to counteract the F'U vote of those outgoing RINOs who were unseated.

No Thanks !!!

 

[Fox123]

I could see these judges going the opposite, using the 14th to make all states May issue.......

 

[danb]

I would bet that if a Republican wins in 2016, there are a few retirements announced in November.

Depends on who the republican is. Are we talking the big govt progressive wing of the GOP, like Chris Christie or Bush (who was for background checks before he was against it)?

It will depend on who wins the nomination. But, elections will have consequences for sure.

 

[press1280]

Winner Winner-Chicken Dinner.

But they would wait until December or January to make their announcements so it wouldn't look so deliberate.

Family issues. Health issues. Etc.

We could also see an Anthony Kennedy retiring (after the new GOP president is sworn in).

 

[clandestine]

Hopefully Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer will retire after 2016.

If I were President I would have a meeting with Scalia and ask him who has earned his respect and then nominate three of those he and I mention over dinner. Hell, I would televise it.

Then Roberts can join the 2 leftist idiots for a consistent 6-3. Then they can overturn this case, all of the anti 2A bullcrap, Obamacare, roe v wade, and if they feel froggy, Brown v B.O.E.

 

[EL1227]

Slightly O.T.

America's post-Constitutional culture

Justice Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell confirms Tocqueville’s prediction [that America has developed a post-constitutional culture in which people are transformed from independent citizens into weak dependents]. He writes that the Court must uphold the statute because, to do otherwise, “would destabilize the individual insurance market”.

With reverse pretzel-logic, I am sure that Roberts, siding with a liberal majority, would find that the Court must uphold the 'may issue' statute because, to do otherwise, “would affect the general welfare in those states”. After all, those 17 states had already transformed their citizens into weak dependents ... and life-long DemocRAT voters.

The Roberts’ opinion is Tocqueville’s nightmare: the citizens of democracy will voluntarily give up their liberty, even to the point of ignoring constitutional prerogatives, in return for care from an all-powerful government.

 

[Fox123]

About now would say we are right between apathy and dependence

 

[clandestine]

About now would say we are right between apathy and dependence

I would argue that we are in the bondage stage, depending on your political affiliation, sexual, orientation, race, religion, and financial status.