Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Travelinman, Jul 11, 2019.
Or maybe just had her hand behind her back with her fingers crossed.
No doubt elections matter.
We should keep in mind that both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. I was hoping to see a SCOTUS ruling against NYC's restrictive gun transportation laws...
New York City Asks Supreme Court to Drop Gun Case
We'll see what happens on this. There's another case in the wings challenging New Jersey's may issue racket.
I know this case is really important for those it impacts, but for gun owners around the country, this is a really bad case. If the SCOTUS rules for gun rights, the only beneficiary is NYC residents because the case is so narrow. If the SCOTUS rules against gun rights, it is a green light for many other localities and states to copy NYC law and go beyond that to see how far they can push it.
Unfortunately some here are so focused on winning every battle that they forget about winning the war.
Both Roberts and Alito said the same thing about Roe, yet that will not stop either of them from overruling it or you for praising them for doing it.
The reality is that all justices, conservatives and liberals, vote to overturn one or two prior decisions every single term. That is the way it has been and that the way it will remain. It is only a big deal when someone disagrees with the decision being overturned.
MacDonald was based on Heller. If Heller is overturned, MacDonald is essentially overturned. I expect that the justices will explicitly state that in the opinion.
What happens then?
In some parts of the country, nothing or maybe even some loosening of laws as a reaction. In other parts of the country it will lead to bans and mandatory buybacks. The buy-backs will face 5th Amendment challenges that may well end up in the Supreme Court.
Unless there is a massive leftwards swing due to Trump, nothing much will happen in Congress at the federal level. All Republicans and enough rural Democrats will vote against major gun regulations to defeat anything big. There will be advances for gun regulation on the margins. Universal background check will pass. "Mental disability" restrictions will expand and there may be a national "Red Flag" law. There will not be an "assault weapons" ban and a magazine ban is likely to be "no magazines larger than factory capacity" rather than no more than 15 or 10 or 5 or whatever number of bullets.
The action will move to states and it will just move the country farther apart.
OK, we will see how good your crystal ball is, I saved it. Maybe do an annual audit. I’ll bet you $100 you are wrong on Heller and Roe, bet?
You sound like a guy trying to appease a rabid dog hoping he attacks you last. Your way may mean you keep A firearm of some sort. We need to draw a line in the sand. The left has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain, it’s just a matter of time. They want us to give up something in exchange for delaying their ultimate gratification.
You can give up your guns, but you don’t speak for me.
I was in the “reasonable” restrictions camp, you know, to keep firearms out of the severely mentally ill, and felons, because who really want them to have access to firearms.
Then I looked at my sigline. Despite what a group of people say, “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear, to say it is up for interpretation is like 42 parsing words like the definition of “is”, it’s stupid on its face and an obvious trick.
So warts and all, shall not be infringed means all comers, 2-92, blind, cripple, and crazy, and felons, and people from other lands, EVERYONE as it is a right from God and God is over everyone, not just Americans. Yes, think makes me as nervous as a Christian Scientist with an appendicitis, but here I stand.
My, how “progressive” of you. You and I will just disagree on this. You won’t convince me, and I certainly won’t convince you. Have a good night.
No, you and Willy just failed to make your case that would sway us to your way of thinking. Just as we have failed as well. We, I don’t think are closed minded, just what y’all were saying didn’t strike the cord.
No, that just BUFFs taking off.
So a gun shop owner can’t say, “I don’t like the way that person is behaving.” A refuse the sale?
Yes they will get a firearm regardless. A charge of “felon in possession” or not mentally competent. Are just bargaining chips to stack charges, kind of throwing poop at a wall and seeing what sticks.
Crazies are going to crazy and felons are going to felony, but others will be, maybe, better prepared to stop them quicker that Scott Israel can.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how a ruling against one of NYC's very restrictive guns laws is a negative. The population of NYC is close to 9 million. That would be equal to several of our least populated or a couple average states. The impact of McDonald covered a smaller number of people.
Twice a year...
Well he ain’t king and neither are you, so **** him and **** you too.
I've never expressed an opinion on Roe here or anywhere else. How do you know what I think of that decision?
I am not making a case, I was explaining my concerns. I am saying I have doubts about the wisdom of Constitutional Carry born from a first hand experience I had at a concealed carry class here, which was required to obtain an Enhanced Concealed Carry License here in Idaho. Most of the attendees carried to the class by virtue of our CC status. Only a few displayed basic handgun safety, only two a proficiency that would make their carry piece anything more than a dangerous talisman (dangerous because of the aforementioned basic safety breakdowns). It was this experience that changed my mind on the virtue (and practical benefit) of CC (the subject of this thread).
Being a dyed in the wool thread hijacker myself, I can’t really complain about the thread creep to general 2A limits, we have seen it morph to the philosophical debate regarding no 2A restrictions, versus limited restrictions (mentally ill and Felons as called out explicitly in Heller).
My opinion is limits such as these are reasonable. Does that mean crazy people can never get their hands on a gun? Clearly not, but I also don’t believe limits on the mentally ill and felons translates to everyone losing their rights.
But I do understand the philosophical position many have that if there is any limit to gun rights, eventually they evolve to everyone being prohibited.
In any case, I do think anyone quoting the sentence fragment “shall not be infringed” and willfully leaving the rest of the sentence out, which is the the real 2A, such that they can say clearly they knew what those words meant, is just setting themselves up for disappointment as it pertains to what is or isn’t constitutional going forward.
I've seen some shooters at some of the defensive shooting classes I've attended that scare the hell out of me. I guess kudos for them for at least taking a class and doing something to learn.
I think the bottom line here in my state is that I haven't heard any news stories about accidental discharges or good guys being shot since permitless carry was passed.