Supreme Court to decide on CC legality?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by blucoondawg, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. blucoondawg

    blucoondawg New Member

    1,178
    0
    0
    I just saw on Fox News that the Supreme Court is going to decide whether we have the right to carry concealed weapons outside the home, apparently the Fed court in Colorado said the 2A doesn't grant this right, and Fed court in Illinois decided it does fall under 2A and in New York they say you have to prove reason to need a permit. So now the high court is going to decide on the issue. Hopefully the court agrees with the decision in Illinois that keep and "bear" arms references to carrying loaded weapons outside the home otherwise there will be a huge blow dealt to our freedoms.

    I personally don't see how it's any business of the Federal Govt to stick their nose into the issue, the larger and more corrupt the Fed becomes the more the need for State's Rights grows.
     
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    If this is true we are in serious trouble.
     

  3. blucoondawg

    blucoondawg New Member

    1,178
    0
    0
  4. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Not good. Not good at all.
     
  5. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    To "bear" means to carry.

    Molon Labe!
     
  6. JWagner

    JWagner New Member

    598
    0
    0
    It looks like they are supporting the Tenth Amendment; they will leave it up to the states to write the concealed carry laws. Which is nothing new.
     
  7. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    In Florida alone there are more than a million people with concealed weapons licenses. That's just one state. Seems to me the issue's already been decided. If they now rule that concealed carry is unconstitutional then the mother of all class-action lawsuits gets filed against every state that tries to revoke CC licenses by license holders who will want to recoup all the money they spent on licensing fees.
     
  8. blucoondawg

    blucoondawg New Member

    1,178
    0
    0
    I don't really believe it will be a issue of whether or not cc is constitutional but rather whether cc is legal under 2a which would mean it would be legal throughout the nation, the challenge comes from a WA resident who applied for a CO cc permit and was denied as CO only issues to residents so he challenged based on 2A. I think the court will say States have the ability to decide, as it is now, not say CC is illegal.
     
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63
    The federal courts will eventually rule that the states cannot ban carry, but may impose "reasonable" regulation. And then other cases in the future will be needed to define "reasonable.

    At least, that's my guess.
     
  10. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    They already have, the 7th Circuit ruled exactly that in December and affirmed it last week. Illinois has about 60 days left to enact a concealed carry law or it becomes a Constitution Carry state by default. I also believe that the Maryland decision last year struck down the "reasonable need" requirement in that state's law. We now have several different precedents set by the various Circuit Courts...add Heller and McDonald to the mix and it's increasingly apparent that SCOTUS needs to take the issue and the only real solution is incorporation of the 2A to the states which neither Heller nor McDonald has done.

    The CO case, as stated, was a narrow decision on Constitutional Carry, the plaintiff sued because he was denied a CO CCW and there was no reciprocity with his resident state. The Courts ruling upheld the rights of the states to regulate who can carry a firearm within their borders...it was not necessarily determinitive of whether the 2A affords one the right to bear arms.

    Problem is I do not trust the Roberts Court to do the right thing, not enough pure constitutional conservatives, hope I am wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  11. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    Rog that, thanks for clarifying.
     
  12. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63


    There is nothing in the Constitution that could possibly strike down CC. That is not a concern.

    My concern is that the 2A says "keep and bear arms. There is no specificity con chow that right is to be exercised. If they read that literally, and factor in the 10A, the SCOTUS will probably rule that the 2A protection is satisfied if a "reasonable, prudent man" is allowed to obtain a permit to carry without undue burden.

    I doubt that they will address the issue of open v concealed.
     
  13. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    This is proper purview of the USSC. To settle differences between various lower Federal Courts, to make the law uniform and apply equally to all. Some would question why the Feds have any business in such an issue and argue it is a "State's rights" issue. Probably the only time in history NY will argue FOR the 10th Amendment
     
  14. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63
    Valid points, all.

    But the SCOTUS has traditionally ruled that individual constitutional rights trump states rights.

    The guarantees of the 2A for all citizens must be preserved even if that means SCOTUS overriding state laws.
     
  15. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,027
    69
    48
    The only real problem is NO COURT has the authority to decide which right we wish to exercise, only "WE THE PEOPLE" do!!!!
    And CC is a right, not privilege!:mad:
    This has NOTHING to do with states rights.
     
  16. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63


    Jim, the right to carry, or BEAR is a "right.' The right to "conceal" is not covered by the constitution.

    And if you believe in the constitution, it very clearly appoints the SCOTUS, not the people as the final arbiter of the constitution.

    A nation of laws, not of men, puts the law above the popular sentiment.

    And the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of those laws.

    WE THE PEOPLE is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  17. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    All true. I will add that the job of SCOTUS is also to ensure that laws do not infringe on the rights of We The People. To that end they weigh the Constitutional authority granted to government against the power assumed by government under the rule of law.
     
  18. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    That's how it's supposed to work. Sadly, the Supremes more often make law rather than interpret it. It's the same for lower courts.
     
  19. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63
    That's true.

    But the only way to legally change that is to elect presidents that will appoint conservative "strict constructionists" to the bench
     
  20. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,027
    69
    48
    I would have to disagree with you on this one. The 2nd says 'bear' which means 'carry'. How I elect to carry it is no business of the government!
    NO COURT HAS A FINAL SAY! If so there would not have been a revolution!
    The courts are part of the government and are subject to the same corruption as the rest of the government, which is obvious if you see there finding about the 2nd Amendment! :mad: