Posted on 11/27/2017 9:16:15 AM PST by jazusamo
The Supreme Court declined to take up two Second Amendment cases on Monday, which challenged laws banning assault weapons and open-carry in Maryland and Florida.
Both cases were denied review without comment from the justices, which left the lower court rulings in place.
In the Florida challenge, the state Supreme Court upheld Florida’s ban on open carry finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Correction. The Supreme Court declining to hear a case, does NOT uphold anything. While it means the ruling stands in that particular federal circuit, no precedent is set and the ruling does not apply outside the circuit. There are many reasons the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, perhaps they don't think it's a good test case for whatever reason or are waiting for a split at the circuit level before they take up the case.
In the founding fathers time, and long after, carrying open was taken for granted. Here is the Colorado state constitution on gun rights. I used this as an example but several states have basically the same provision:
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
They did not like concealed weapons. You said, “But they didn’t say you could carry it in public for all to see”. No, they essentially said you had to carry it in public for all to see.
That's my thought. If the SC takes the case now, and we lose, it still becomes SC precedent.
Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton and Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed Obama so they are definitely votes against us. Kennedy is a questionable vote and my guess is he'd throw it back to the states, which doesn't help those of us in deep blue states.
So I don't think we have the SC votes for rifle features, standard magazine capacity and national open carry.
Yet.
(I'm also not sure it's the conservative justices who would be anxious to hear this. The liberal ones might prefer precedent since they can see what's coming down the pike to the SC in the future.)
I'll point out a couple of things.
First, at the time of its writing do you agree that the Second Amendment protected the right to carry openly, given that the vast majority of citizens would have owned long guns?
Second, by suggesting that concealed carry, which is a relatively recently supported practice, is MORE justified, aren't you suggesting that we can simply consider the nation's present needs in order to determine what the Constitution means?
This way of thinking is destroying our nation despite the Founders attempt to secure our liberties.
I reversed my position earlier. As a couple of people pointed out, when the second came about, it was not really possible to carry concealed. Just as nobody saw the need to explicitly say that marriage was between a man and a woman, for obvious reasons, it didn’t need to explicitly say you could carry without hiding. Sadly, we know how the former worked out.
“Open carry” is the worst thing to ever happen to the 2A movement. Idiots.
Oh geez.
The constitution wasn’t talking about pistols. How do yo conceal carry a rifle?
Yep. I get it. read my post before this one.
The SC cannot give an advisory opinion so they'll need a proper dispute to get involved.
While nothing is certain, I'm not too concerned with this. In 2010 the SC incorporated the 2nd Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago.
It will take a bigger twisting of the constitution than Roberts pulled on obamacare to get around McDonald.
It just takes time...and a few more appointments like Gorsuch wouldn't hurt either.
Hamilton reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army.
quote:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Notice Hamilton's phrase "there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms..." That means the Framers expected the people to be armed similarly to the army.
-PJ
I agree.
In the hands of the militia, we should call them "repel weapons." ;-)
-PJ
the state Supreme Court upheld Florida’s ban on open carry finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.
Really? Where do find that missing in the second amendment?
That is literally expressed, as taken to a reasoned conclusion.
Carefully and upright...
Can’t have that powder and ball inconveniently dropping out of the barrel...
Surprise, surprise. The uniparty and it’s minions on the courts are going to not uphold the plain language of the Second Amendment. In much the same way the house will never quite get around to considering national reciprocity.
This is a suckers game.The gop wing of the uniparty always needs just a little more to actually do anything. Gosh, they only have control of the majority of the state legislatures, most governorships, the house, the senate, and the presidency. I guess they’re waiting for manna from heaven? A burning bush?
We’re being played.
Politics is a scam and we’re suckers for playing.
>>You can keep and bear your penis, but you can’t open carry that either.
But you can possess boobs and open carry those as long as you cover the nipples. So, lets do open carry of handguns as long as the muzzle has a cover.
Proud to know you. You’re a stand up, honest person.
Well put, WW.
There is a problem in California and the 9th Circuit which says the same thing - you don’t have the right to open carry. But they do not guarantee a right to carry concealed either. California (and Hawaii) offer CCW permits by the discretion of the local police only. So neither form of carry is a protected right. Which makes it a wrong. The USSC needed to intervene but so far refuses.
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.