Posted on 05/20/2017 8:16:27 AM PDT by marktwain
There is only one new relist this week – but oh, what a relist it is. Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law. Under California law, openly carrying a handgun outside the home is generally prohibited, but concealed carry is permissible with a license. Applicants for concealed-carry permits must demonstrate “good cause” to obtain a license, which some county sheriffs (the relevant decision-makers) interpret to include a desire to carry a handgun for self-defense. The San Diego County Sheriff, however, defines “good cause” to require a showing of a particularized need for self-defense.We should know with certainty, in a few days.
Gorsuch won’t make a difference. As long as Kennedy and Roberts are there.
I am not a real strong advocate of open carry. When in a firefight in the military, being able to identify automatic weapons by setting your gun to auto will direct fire toward you in most cases as they recognize your auto use. Open carry of a firearm can trigger a response a lot like it as the shooter will identify your capacity and using any common sense, with open up on you first.
Sometimes there is something to be said about what they don’t see.
rwood
This could be a very bad thing. This could effectively nullify the Second Amendment. We need a safe margin of Justices who believe in the Constitution, and we don’t really have that.
“It is unknown when the Supreme Court will hear the case. Presumably, it will be this year.”
I don’t believe that it can possibly be heard this term, as most oral arguments are done by March. What you have from the end of March until the end of June is the writing and handing down of decisions. We are already in the latter half of May, so it is, in my opinion, highly unlikely that this case will be heard this term. Traditionally, if a Justice is going to retire they announce it immediately after the term ends on June 30th. That way the President can nominate and the Senate can confirm comma the replacement by the beginning of the new term on October 1st. So, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires on June 30th, then Trump will have the opportunity to have another person on the bench. Ditto for Kennedy. I would feel a lot better if there was a replacement for Kennedy, and I would feel magnificently if there was a replacement for Ginsburg, before this case is
I have seen open carry here in NC and TN. Fine with me. I know I am among like minded people, but a bad guy also knows who is a threat to him.
Thanks for the information.
I would like to see another justice appointed by Trump before Peruta is heard.
So carry concealed, if that's what suits you. At least you (appear to) live in a state that recognises your right to exercise that choice.
Californians, for the most part, have no 2nd Amendment rights.
Maybe they’ll get around to defining that “Shall Not Be Abridged” thing.
I think a bad decision in this case will more likely wind up nullifying the court.
There are limits to 'the consent of the governed' in this country. Ruling in favor of the state of California in this case could set the stage for a series of events that might well culminate in a restore to default settings of our federal government.
Infringed....
Oooops
Synapses misfiring need more coffee.
I hear ya. I probably only caught it because I'm on cup three ;-)
"Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law."
Patriots are reminded the following about the 2nd Amendment (2A). The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), included 2A when he read the Bill of Rights as the main example of enumerated constitutional rights that 14A applies to the states.
See the 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in the middle of the 2nd column from the page in congressional record which contains Bingham’s explanation.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This is another case that I’m surprised has made it as far to the Supreme Court as it has.
Regardless that Hillary didn’t win Oval Office, I question if misguided activist states like California are actually hoping that anti-2A activist justices will politically repeal that amendment from the bench.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I’ve heard similar arguments many times. My counter: tactically speaking it is undoubtedly better to carry concealed. But that completely misses the point. Our bigger concern should be strategic. The best gunfight outcome is no gunfight at all because the bad guy, skittering cockroach that he is, has decided to look for easier prey.
Moreover, widespread open carry would likely result in the virtual elimination of violent crime.
” but a bad guy also knows who is a threat to him”
But at least if he doesn’t know I’m carrying, and unless I am by myself, he may not pick me first cause I am the biggest threat to him. This may give me enough time to assess the situation and give me a few seconds to decide what is the best plan of attack or defense. Getting shot first before you can access your weapon, may be too late to do the right thing. Showing force early is not going to stop the perp from firing. It will just cause him to change tactics and do it differently than you planned. Makes it harder to react no matter where you have the weapon.
“Regardless, our preferences should not dictate/influence others’ Second Amendments rights on how they wish to transport a weapon on their person.”
Completely agree with this. But the problem with the argument going on is that it is about how to carry it, not how to use it. I don’t feel the state, any state, can be placed in a position to determine where the weapon can be carried. The concealed carry is supposed to determine of a person can safely and consistently use the intelligence to carry a weapon, period. If I carry it open, it can be on my hip, either one, on my front under my arm with my shirt off, on my belt in front of me......they shouldn’t make that call. If I carry concealed, it can be under my coat, inside my shirt, in my pants........what difference does it make? I have a gun, if I care to I will openly carry it, or conceal it, that makes no difference as the state has to determine just that I can handle the situation, not where it is coming from.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.