Concealed carry' ruling could help put gun issue on Supreme Court agenda

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Sep 29, 2017.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/2...ut-gun-issue-on-supreme-court-agenda.amp.html
    the 2nd should apply across all states , and yes that includes carrying.
     
  2. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #2
    Was reading and this tidbit caught my eye ...
    So how do they actually define "good reason to fear injury"? o_O
     
  3. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    Back before people went goo goo for bang bang you had to work in protection IIRC.
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    that there bothers me a bit as it's open to interpretation by the issuing agency
     
  5. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #5
    Same.
    So if I carry valuables and fear theft?
    So if I live in a neighborhood where assault happens daily?
    So if I have a threat from a disgruntled customer?
    So if a fatwā calling for my assassination is issued?

    Just what does this really mean? :confused:
     
  6. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #6
    So much for that hope.

    D.C. officials have reportedly decided not to ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, Wrenn v D.C., out of concern that the Supreme Court would uphold the D.C. Circuit's decision and establish a precedent that would apply nationwide.

    The D.C. Circuit's reasoning substantively conflicts with reasoning from other circuits. With this decision not being appealed to the Supreme Court, that circuit split will persist for now. The reasoning of the D.C. Circuit will control in that circuit while the reasoning of the other circuits will control in those circuits.

    Speaking practically, when it comes to state or local laws relating to the carrying of firearms in public, that means the D.C. Circuit's reasoning will only affect D.C. laws and their enforcement.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.a338e8ddd98b
     
  7. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #7
    Seems like the Supreme Court would almost be forced to take the issue if someone argued equal protection. You can't have each circuit establishing different interpretations of the 2nd.
     
  8. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #8
    If D.C. had appealed to the Supreme Court then, yeah, there's a very good chance it would have agreed to hear the case. There being a circuit split (or a split between a state's highest court and a federal circuit) on a fundamental question of law is one of the factors the Court looks at when deciding whether to hear a case. It would be tough for the Court to avoid this issue (as it has repeatedly chosen to do in the past) with the clear circuit split that now exists (and which hadn't existed before when it decided not to hear this issue).
     
  9. DearthnVader, Oct 7, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2017

    DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #9
    Thanks for the insight.

    I find the legal arguments more compelling than the political ones.
     
  10. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #10
    With some jealousy guarded exceptions and restrictions I think Americans should be able to own and carry firearms on their private property and with consent on the private property of others.

    I don’t, however, feel that right should be interpreted to carry concealed or openly in public.
     
  11. webbuzz macrumors 68000

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #11
    I believe ‘good reason’ was removed from the most recent application.
     
  12. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #12
    Sure, criminals and mass shooters will abide by that law.:rolleyes:

    How do you plan on enforcing it, checkpoints?
     
  13. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #13
    That line of thinking is ridiculous in my view. It’s just a mechanism to justify remaining closed minded.

    Public open or concealed carrying didn’t stop the Las Vegas shooting either. Banning bump stocks, which the NRA seems to support the possibility, won’t stop mass shootings ether. So the government revisiting that measure has no merit?

    And not every opinion on the 2nd Amendment, or piece of legislation must be a solution to every crime and mass shooting else it’s useless.
     
  14. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #14
    It has merit. What we need is a framework that defines gun ownership for the modern day. All these piecemeal laws and regs just confuse and cloud the issue while making a mockery of the existing laws.
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #15
    You failed to answer the question, I'll give you a hint, it ends with ?

    It's impossible to have a rational discussion if people just chose to ignore it when they are asked a direct question.
     
  16. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #16
    That tone isn’t necessary.

    When I lived and worked in (municipal) California, I never encountered open carry, and rarely encountered concealed and every instance I did it was being carried illegally, with the except of another law enforcement officer. So off the top of my head, it’s handled that way. If you’re discovered carrying open or concealed in public you’re arrested. How was that a difficult “?” to answer?

    And by the way, as a peace officer if I saw a firearm in public I had the authority to detain the person and inspect the firearm to determine if they were carrying lawfully...not loaded. No roadblocks.
     
  17. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #17
    So you would arrest people you find with guns, but you don't really have a plan on enforcement other than what police already do when they find criminals with fire arms?

    Like I said, criminals are just going to ignore your law, just like they ignore the law now, when it suits them. The only thing your talking about doing, in the end of the day, is stopping law abiding people from carrying a gun.

    Too bad the high court doesn't agree with you, you know that part about bearing arms.
     
  18. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #18
    First, let’s remember the conversation. I said I’d be favorable to the 2nd Amendment strictly interpreted to limiting open or concealed carry to private property and not applying to public areas.

    You asked how I’d enforce that. And I provided an answer.

    Criminals defy laws by definition. Certainly you’re not advocating going door-to-door to confiscate guns. That, my friend, the courts would never support you on.
     
  19. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    No, thank you. That is way too restrictive and in my humble opinion would be unconstitutional.

    That said, I think banning bump stocks or other devices that simulate fully automatic weapons is a good idea. Enforce laws that are already on the books. Unfortunately, this is a problem in Chicago. I have no problem with background checks on all gun sales.
     
  20. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #20
    I agree. It really makes no sense that a law laid out in the Constitution allows states to set their own rules. Given how much power the federal government has taken away from the states, why they allow the states this power makes little sense.
     
  21. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #21
    I’m not sure it would be unconstitutional but I respect that opinion (and appreciate the way it was expressed.)
     
  22. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #22
    Just because we disagree doesn't mean we shouldn't be civil to one another. Look, no one in their right mind wants shootings to continue, whether it is mass shootings like in Las Vegas or the 50+ deaths last month in Chicago. The first amendment rights all have some restrictions on them, and I see no reason why the second shouldn't have some reasonable restrictions. The issue is what are "reasonable restrictions?"
     
  23. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #23
    So, you find law abiding citizens with guns in public to be the threat you'd like to concentrate on?

    How is that going to reduce gun crime?
     
  24. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #24
    I feel SCOTUS needs to weigh in on the Second Amendment particularly to add more clarity on the limit in which government can restrict arms in public, the need for permits, requirement for cause, types of weapons etc. They seem to be deliberately avoiding it.
     
  25. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #25
    Because the anti-gun side doesn't want reasonable. They want to completely eliminate them. Can't reason with people like that. There are plenty of reasonable restrictions I would be OK with being codified, provided any restriction reiterate our right to ownership and possession.

    I am really surprised the NRA is Ok with reopening the bump-stock debate.
     

Share This Page

25 September 29, 2017