Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   No 2nd Amdmt right to CC (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/no-2nd-amdmt-right-cc-85597/)

indy36 03-02-2013 03:49 PM

No 2nd Amdmt right to CC
 
Have you guys seen this? Seems like a big deal. What it could mean across the board.


http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/02/no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapon/

RJMercer 03-02-2013 09:54 PM

That is a very left leaning article pointing out how evil gun owners and the NRA are. It's just spin on the case but in the end the case is a big setback for us given that the supremes will refuse to hear it and the odds of it getting overturned are nill.

gearhead396 03-02-2013 11:10 PM

Saw this on an article from the blaze basically talking about the same thing but it adds this though i dont agree that CC is not a privilege it most certainly is a right the article still makes me feel a little better since I'm in Texas but I'm still mad.
FROM THE BLAZE

"It is at this point that many gun rights supporters must be feeling nervous. After all, if a state can set up its concealed carry laws and open carry laws such that a citizen literally cannot carry their weapon in particular circumstances, surely that means the right to keep and bear arms is something of a formality.

Fortunately for these people, there are several factors that make that problem less pressing. Firstly, this case only applies to areas where the 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction – specifically, Colorado, Kansas, most of Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, and may not even apply there, given that an appeal will almost certainly come out of the case, given that it directly contradicts another decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Secondly, the court in this case did not rule that bans on open carry are constitutional (and, in fact, noted with some bewilderment that Peterson had not challenged the open carry statute in the decision), simply that there is no “right” to carry a concealed weapon implied by the Second Amendment. Again, other Circuit Courts differ with this assessment, and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to step in.

For now, however, concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right."

dango 03-03-2013 01:31 AM

OK , brace yourselves! Seriously!

The peoples whom stand against us (Anti-Firearms types) , think they are going to just come and perhaps , demand our firearms!

Should this ever come to pass , it'll be no "CAKE-WALK".......!
Should they come , I've already decided which end to hand them! :mad:

dango 03-03-2013 02:34 AM

Fear not..! You are on a (FIREARMS) forum..! They know , buy the ammo you buy , the legal guns you own , WT-HAY............? :confused:

dog2000tj 03-03-2013 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indy36 (Post 1160542)
Have you guys seen this? Seems like a big deal. What it could mean across the board.


http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/02/no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapon/

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJMercer (Post 1160900)
That is a very left leaning article pointing out how evil gun owners and the NRA are. It's just spin on the case but in the end the case is a big setback for us given that the supremes will refuse to hear it and the odds of it getting overturned are nill.

With the 10th's ruling being in contrast to the 7th's earlier ruling ...

Quote:

in Colorado’s Moore v. Madison, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
it would seem that the SC's hand will be forced to hear the appeal. In light of McDonald, Heller, Miller and Moore I would feel confident that 2A's supporters argument will be validated ... that the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable ... in or outside the home. It's may be just a matter of how to bear the arms that will be in question ... semantics to me :cool:

JonM 03-03-2013 02:53 AM

in wisconsin open carry is part of our state constitution.

JimRau 03-03-2013 02:31 PM

The 'right' to 'bear arms' don't mean we have the right to roll up our selves! :p
It means we have a 'right' to carry weapons when, where, and however we so choose! It is not rocket science, but the progressives will try to control the narrative by confusing SOME people! Do not allow them to blur the truth. :mad:

locutus 03-03-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimRau (Post 1161705)
The 'right' to 'bear arms' don't mean we have the right to roll up our selves! :p
It means we have a 'right' to carry weapons when, where, and however we so choose! It is not rocket science, but the progressives will try to control the narrative by confusing SOME people! Do not allow them to blur the truth. :mad:

\\
If you study American history, THE TRUTH is that no right is absolute. Never has been, never will be. Not even free speech.

Whether we like it or not there will always be some restrictions on the 2A. Our job is to keep them reasonable. The 2A will never be interpreted to mean you have the right to own anti-aircraft missiles. Push for that, and you will raise such a public outcry that the libs may be able to get the 2A repealed in it's entirety.

Our best weapon is reason and common sense. Our worst enemy is fanaticism.

Bladerunnerfury 03-03-2013 02:56 PM

Is so funny the people with ZERO guns are telling the people with all the guns what to do, kinda ironic if you ask me.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.