I don't think so. However, you can bet your bippy that George W. Bush appointee John Roberts was in on the fix.
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 ...
It doesn’t say how you should carry at all. The court is just making up their own little rule...for their state...but the Bill of Rights is Federal and pertains to all states and EVERY person.
You can bear it if it becomes necessary for you to do so. i.e. there is justification that you are in a situation where it is appropriate to discharge the weapon.
The SCOTUS will not hear such controversial cases such as denied individual right of the Second Amendment. So much for their oath of office. What good is the SCOTUS to the American people?
Once they get Concealed Carry out of the way, their next target is Gun Registration.
Once they get Gun Registration out of the way, their next target is Gun Ownership.
Incremental-ism is the tool of Liberal Tyranny. They have always been very patient in achieving their goals. They have taken over every Institution in America, the Courts, the Education System, the Entertainment Industry and the News Media. The Congress is infested with Liberals from both Political Parties who have rendered the United States Constitution null and void when they approve Legislation. When you think of Liberalism, remember this passage from the Movie The Terminator. "It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear...and it absolutely will not stop. Ever."
Tell that to New Jersey and a plethora of other states who require that you beg their permission to even purchase, let alone carry a firearm. Since the permission may be denied (and carry almost always is denied here), it is a clear infringement.
I don't think so. However, you can bet your bippy that George W. Bush appointee John Roberts was in on the fix.
This ruling says that any state in the Union can ban any firearm they determine to be a “military” or “assault” weapon.
What could the 2nd Amendment possibly be referring to more clearly than a “military” firearm?
Tell that to New Jersey and a plethora of other states who require that you beg their permission to even purchase, let alone carry a firearm. Since the permission may be denied (and carry almost always is denied here), it is a clear infringement.
If a state has both open and concealed carry eliminated, they have violated the constitution. I believe universal conceal carry is more constitutionally justified than open carry. A lot of people don’t know this, but it was quite common in the “old west” CIVILIZED towns to not be allowed to have an open carry gun on your person, regardless of what Hollywood and TV suggest.
It’s dangerous.
And I’m a strong supporter of it if conceal carry is not allowed, or difficult to get. If you can’t carry at all, your rights are being infringed.
How do I conceal this, which was the common weapon at the time the founders wrote the second, morons.
In the Movie Tombstone, Johnny Ringo open carried his Gun. LOL
If it can not be concealed, you should have the right to open carry. Otherwise, the right to carry is being infringed.
The Justices themselves. If four or more vote to hear the case then they hear the case. This means that three Justices or fewer voted for it.
I’m concerned with upholding the “assault weapon” ban for several reasons:
It invites further distortion of the term “assault weapon”.
It emboldens other states to attempt such restrictions.
Expanded restrictions invite open rebellion.
I have always been so grateful I wasn’t born with one of those things, it frees me up to obsess about more important things.
Not only is that a good question, but Congress should be asking that question imo. Well, maybe after 2018 elections anyway.
In order to thoroughly clean the swamp, citizens need to know who is making these decisions.
They'd have to HEAR it to scrutinize it, wouldn't they? They are declining to HEAR the two referenced.
The military arms of the period were muskets and swords, neither of which can be concealed.
“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion.
Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh said the Supreme Court’s decision not to review his state’s “common-sense law” confirms all states have the right to protect their citizens from “weapons of war.”
“Assault weapons, which have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of people in recent months, are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Firearm Safety Act remains the law in Maryland,” Mr. Frosh said.
You, Sir, need to go back to law school.
Denied justice is injustice.
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.