U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
5,869
Likes
15,787
Location
Westgardminsterham MA

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
5,869
Likes
15,787
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
Please change the thread subject. The Constitution does not 'grant' (give) rights. It guarantees natural rights.

The article you quoted got it right: "...the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right ..."

I did not compose the title of the thread, it is a quote of the actual article title copied and pasted.
I was just sharing some news -- editorializing never entered my mind.
 

StevieP

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
9,117
Likes
5,416
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
I did not compose the title of the thread, it is a quote of the actual article title copied and pasted.
I was just sharing some news -- editorializing never entered my mind.

Roger that. I replied to the Reuters tweet suggesting they make a correction, too.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,220
Likes
5,675
Location
My forest stronghold

crispnipz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
501
Likes
699
Location
Melrose
As a Medford resident and therefore the proud owner of a restricted LTC, when this inevitably goes to SCOTUS and is affirmed, I wonder if they will give states like MA a grace period to change their laws (like with stun guns) or would all state carry permits become meaningless relatively immediately?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
3,413
Likes
1,214
Location
RI - but not on the island part
As a Medford resident and therefore the proud owner of a restricted LTC, when this inevitably goes to SCOTUS and is affirmed, I wonder if they will give states like MA a grace period to change their laws (like with stun guns) or would all state carry permits become meaningless relatively immediately?
Kind of getting ahead of yourself, eh Bucky?
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
5,869
Likes
15,787
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
Kind of getting ahead of yourself, eh Bucky?

Yes...
r5AV3oO.png


:emoji_baby_chick::emoji_tiger::emoji_baby_chick:
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,047
Likes
5,178
Location
Stoughton
I expect ala Peruta the 9CA will sit on this for as long as possible. If and when it gets to SCOTUS, I think it will be ripe. Kavanaugh's confirmation is more important than ever now.


This kind of report ticks me off. They don't give you much information that would allow someone to trackdown the actual case.

But I found it: Young Opinion

Don't get too excited CA9 will meet en banc to 'fix' it.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
7,868
Likes
8,157
Location
Tennessee
You do have to remember, Trump has been appointing judges left and right.

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

40 lower court judges at the last update. If even a few of them are in the 9th, things could change. Not to mention, will the anti-gunners even press it to the SCOTUS and get an absolute ruling. Once it hits SCOTUS, you have to have a completely different avenue of attack to get it overturned. I'd be willing to bet they may even let it sit in the 9th to not have it given national implications. There's a lot of heavy hitters in the NE who would hate to have restrictions banned.
 

Uzi2

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
9,608
Likes
16,060
I expect ala Peruta the 9CA will sit on this for as long as possible. If and when it gets to SCOTUS, I think it will be ripe. Kavanaugh's confirmation is more important than ever now.

It may not even matter as we might be well into an internal shooting war by then and ALL that bullshit is going right out the window anyway.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
602
Likes
350
I know it's the "9th Circus" and all, but rather then get run over by SCOTUS later... make a proper ruling now????

Yes, I know that sounds bat-crap crazy...

Whole lot of things getting very interesting.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,859
Likes
3,979
Location
NH
Don't get too excited. The 9th basically applied intermediate scrutiny rather than strict, and said only that arbitrary and capricious licensing schemes won't fly; they did not dent their prior support of extremely limiting, restrictive - but not arbitrary and capricious - licensing schemes.

On the other hand, here we are, one step closer to the next step in 2A jurisprudence.
 

StevieP

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
9,117
Likes
5,416
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
The Second Amendment specifically says "... the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What else could "to bear" mean, than to carry? And while concealed may be tactically advantageous, I cannot imagine our forefathers and their 18th Century countrymen gave a damn about open vs concealed carry.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,161
Likes
12,981
Location
western mass
The thing with this decision is that Hawaii and the gun grabbers are in a tough spot. There are 3 possible outcomes:

1). Do nothing and open carry becomes legal.
2). Hawaii requests an enbanc ruling and gets the court to overrule the 3 judge panel.
3). If the ruling is itself overruled it will be inevitably appealed to scotus and with Kavanaugh we stand a pretty good chance at winning. If scotus punts it down the road, then civil rights will suffer another 49 year setback.

Either way there is only 1 path to victory for the gun grabbers and 2 paths for everyone else stuck under the jurisdiction of that god forsaken court.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
115   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
22,242
Likes
13,024
The quote from Judge O'Scannlain about enshrined rights was somewhat heartening, even it requires me putting my own spin on it to get there.



:emoji_tiger:

Reminds me of this awesome quote:

"I don't carry a gun because the state says I can - I carry a gun because the Constitution says they state can't stop me."
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
922
Location
Merrimack Valley
As a Medford resident and therefore the proud owner of a restricted LTC, when this inevitably goes to SCOTUS and is affirmed, I wonder if they will give states like MA a grace period to change their laws (like with stun guns) or would all state carry permits become meaningless relatively immediately?
SCOTUS didn't give a grace period. They kicked it back to the SJC with a short per curiam opinion basically bitch slapping them for brazenly ignoring Heller and misconstruing it as not applying to stun guns. They left it up to the SJC to make a new decision in light of their ruling that stun guns were protected by 2A. The SJC sat on it for over two years and then gave a 60-day "grace period" on top of that. But the grace period was a legal falsehood. You could buy a stun gun out of state and carry it on you in MA during that period and even if they arrested you, they couldn't convict you.

The way this would likely work is, a test case from some state would make its way to SCOTUS. SCOTUS would rule on that law under 2A. That ruling would apply directly to that state's law immediately, at least in the sense that criminal prosecution would be barred. What would happen in other states could go a few different ways.

If the decision was full-on judicial activism, like in Miranda v. Arizona, it would have instantaneous nationwide applicability, but that's highly unlikely.

If another state had very similar laws, other states could just stop enforcing them. That's what happened with abortion after Roe v. Wade, and that's why MA still has had an abortion ban on the books after all this time.

They could also refuse to back down, or even go out of their way to try to pass new full retard laws they think would comply with the letter of SCOTUS's ruling but destroy the spirit. That's what happened with Brown v. Board of Education in the South, they called it "massive resistance," and it took decades to sort it out. People in each state had to file lawsuits in the federal district courts, and slowly, gruelingly push things forward against hostile state legislatures that were constantly putting up more sophisticated barriers.

The last option would be states trying to narrow the scope of the laws in good faith to comply with the ruling before anyone files any lawsuits to strike them down.
 
Top Bottom