DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
I think every kid should get some firearm training. If they go to other people’s houses, they are likely to encounter a gun at some point. Hell, they are educated on sex and drugs. Add some rock and roll.
X2.
I think every kid should get some firearm training. If they go to other people’s houses, they are likely to encounter a gun at some point. Hell, they are educated on sex and drugs. Add some rock and roll.
Originally understood plain meaning is about the original meaning of words. Originalism is about the idiomatic meaning. The words/text may not relate to the original meaning.
Your reference does not contain the word "originally"
It is not irrelevant. It is all about understanding the role of the courts and the type of language used to craft laws, as understood by the founders. As someone that is pushing originalism, you need to understand the basis from which the Constitution was written. The Constitution is inadequately written for it to be understood in anything other than a common law system.
The Constitution does not define the right to be protected under the 2A. It is left to judges for the ultimate determination if the right has been infringed.
The modern bans were not made by the founding generation. You are trying to understand what the founding generation thought, so the reasoning behind the passage of the law is important.
While I have claimed that most bans are illegitimate, I have also claimed that those that reflect societal standards are not illegitimate.
I am also not claiming that the presence of the law is what provides the justification, I am trying to get you to think of reasons why they may have created the ban on concealed carry.
The nature of concealed carry would explain a low number of prosecutions per year, but the almost 10 year passage between enactment and prosecution seems to suggest that it is also not used very often.
The information presented in the article mentioned pistols, but provided little to no information on if they were actually carried concealed. They talked about pockets, but made no mention how exposed they might be in a pocket.
The latter court cases seem to clarify the conflicting information as they specifically address the issue of concealed carry.
"5. Delaware which is an unusual state in so much as they will recognize 3 out of the 9 LTC’s I have and thus allow me to carry, won’t allow a relative of mine in Delaware to get a LTC even though they have 4 other LTC’s from other states. A resident can’t use a non-resident LTC to carry in their home state. Because of that, I do believe Delaware will start issuing LTC’s"
I thought Delaware was effectively shall-issue, as long as you went through their convoluted process like taking out an ad in the paper, etc?
"8. Maryland. Class training requirements will change for sure."
I think Maryland would have a tough time defending changing their years-long practice to be more than 16 hours of class time for someone to exercise a civil right, when most states only want to see 4-8 hours.
I think Maryland would have a tough time defending changing their years-long practice to be more than 16 hours of class time for someone to exercise a civil right, when most states only want to see 4-8 hours.
"5. Delaware which is an unusual state in so much as they will recognize 3 out of the 9 LTC’s I have and thus allow me to carry, won’t allow a relative of mine in Delaware to get a LTC even though they have 4 other LTC’s from other states. A resident can’t use a non-resident LTC to carry in their home state. Because of that, I do believe Delaware will start issuing LTC’s"
I thought Delaware was effectively shall-issue, as long as you went through their convoluted process like taking out an ad in the paper, etc?
"8. Maryland. Class training requirements will change for sure."
I think Maryland would have a tough time defending changing their years-long practice to be more than 16 hours of class time for someone to exercise a civil right, when most states only want to see 4-8 hours.
I agree. The court will want to know why the training gets changed as soon as shall issue is law. Simply put “because more people are carrying” doesn’t quite cut it.
My opinion on how this case will have an effect on LTC/Permit laws.
For all states in question, I do not think it will change anything on the availability of a license for non-residents, other then what changes would effect residents.
1. Hawaii which now for the most part hasn’t issued any permits for open or concealed carry to anyone other then security or the elite. Will soon be forced to do so. I do them see them though passing new laws that will require additional training, or other non discretionary hurdles. However, we should not forget about Young v Hawaii. If it doesn’t get denied. It will make some changes in Hawaii yet if not nationwide as well.
2. New York is allready preparing new bills to require additional standardized state specific training by state certified instructors. Very similar to what is required by Texas, Illinois, Maryland, and Utah to name a few. Those states you have to take a course given by an instructor authorized and certified to teach a specific firearms course. Fees, especially for NYC will soon be challenged.
3. New Jersey will probably follow New York’s lead.
4. Rhode Island Which is a shall issue on a local, and may issue from state AG will become shall issue for the State AG. More difficult local areas will become slightly easier.
5. Delaware which is an unusual state in so much as they will recognize 3 out of the 9 LTC’s I have and thus allow me to carry, won’t allow a relative of mine in Delaware to get a LTC even though they have 4 other LTC’s from other states. A resident can’t use a non-resident LTC to carry in their home state. Because of that, I do believe Delaware will start issuing LTC’s
6. Massachusetts, which is fairly decent about issuing a license for all the other reasons other self defense. And also doesn’t seem to be as strict on the good cause reason as the other 7 states will probably not intiate anything worse. Although their legislature will spend time looking for the loop holes
7. California. Will become shall issue on the books. Those counties which are under red control will start issuing more permits, those counties more blue control will look for more difficult ways to inhibit.
8. Maryland. Class training requirements will change for sure. Fees may go up but I doubt it. At least not by much. They could allready charge non-resident permit holders $300 application fee like Illinois charged me, but they haven’t. They could even have charged me to get my certificate to teach Maryland firearms classes but they didn’t. Texas a constitutional carry state, as well as Utah both charged a fee for me to become an instructor. Texas $100 and Utah $75
One last state Connecticut. Which on the books is a may-issue state but acts like a shall-issue state, will become shall issue on the books.
All of this won’t happen overnight, and one thing is for sure. You will see several dozen cases if not more filed in state and federal courts over what’s said in this opinion.
"5. Delaware which is an unusual state in so much as they will recognize 3 out of the 9 LTC’s I have and thus allow me to carry, won’t allow a relative of mine in Delaware to get a LTC even though they have 4 other LTC’s from other states. A resident can’t use a non-resident LTC to carry in their home state. Because of that, I do believe Delaware will start issuing LTC’s"
I thought Delaware was effectively shall-issue, as long as you went through their convoluted process like taking out an ad in the paper, etc?
"8. Maryland. Class training requirements will change for sure."
I think Maryland would have a tough time defending changing their years-long practice to be more than 16 hours of class time for someone to exercise a civil right, when most states only want to see 4-8 hours.
"5. Delaware which is an unusual state in so much as they will recognize 3 out of the 9 LTC’s I have and thus allow me to carry, won’t allow a relative of mine in Delaware to get a LTC even though they have 4 other LTC’s from other states. A resident can’t use a non-resident LTC to carry in their home state. Because of that, I do believe Delaware will start issuing LTC’s"
I thought Delaware was effectively shall-issue, as long as you went through their convoluted process like taking out an ad in the paper, etc?
"8. Maryland. Class training requirements will change for sure."
I think Maryland would have a tough time defending changing their years-long practice to be more than 16 hours of class time for someone to exercise a civil right, when most states only want to see 4-8 hours.
I looked at the MD course requirement and compared to NRA classes and decided NRA Basic Pistol is deficient as a MD permit class.
Check out this document
https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-basic-firearms-safety-course-list-0/download
Clearly states several NRA courses that are approved
Known as LTC-002
We are not in Massachusetts
Check out this document
https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-basic-firearms-safety-course-list-0/download
Clearly states several NRA courses that are approved
Known as LTC-002
Truthfully though…
Berthing is speculation and conjecture of what will happen until the opinion is released. While there’s an excellent and almost chance tha SCOTUS is going to rule in our favor and strike down the NY LTC law. To what extent we don’t know. How it will effect the 8 may-issue states is unknown as how it will effect the states with shall issue.
We don’t even know for sure if it will cover conceal carry, open carry or both based on the fact that Young V Hawaii which is an open carry case is still pending and has not yet been granted cert, or even denied cert yet.
A lot would become obvious and clear if SCOTUS even were to grant cert at this time, or even deny cert. I don’t think SCOTUS wish’s to give away its “hand” right now. Probably more so clear if cert was granted. If they did that, it would become clear as a bell what would be happening.
From oral argument I don't recall hearing a single word about open carry outside Kagan & Sotomayor (who likely won't rule for our side anyway). Maybe someone heard otherwise?