[Comrade Bork]

Using the 14th Amendment to apply gay marriage to all states that did not want it, does that not also provide precedent to apply shall-issue CCW to those 7 or 8 remaining "discretionary" CCW states that are still dragging their heels on the issue?

Opinions?

 

[Bruce M]

I am going to guess No. I think the Supreme Court at this point is satisfied that there is some reasonable mechanism in place for a concealed weapon in all fifty states. Some of the discretionary states have honored the ability for some to carry a lot longer than some of the shall issue states have.

 

[Acujeff]

It depends. Four of the Justices are adamantly anti-2A and on the record to dismantle the RKBA. If a democrat President, before or after 2016, gets to add more anti-2A Justices to the Supreme Court we won't see pro-2A decisions for a very long time. Expect to see 2A reversals. After 2016, If a republican President gets to add more pro-2A Justices than we'll more likely see pro-2A decisions.

 

[IndyGunFreak]

It depends. Four of the Justices are adamantly anti-2A and on the record to dismantle the RKBA. If a democrat President, before or after 2016, gets to add more anti-2A Justices to the Supreme Court we won't see pro-2A decisions for a very long time. Expect to see 2A reversals. After 2016, If a republican President gets to add more pro-2A Justices than we'll more likely see pro-2A decisions.

Well, a republican put John Roberts in, so don't count your chickens before they're hatched

 

[Warp]

I do NOT want the federal government forcing states to go shall-issue. That's a bad thing.

Do you REALLY want the federal government forcing states to violate our Rights by requiring a license to carry a gun??

Now, if the SCOTUS were to strike down may issue due to some kind of discriminatory or uneven application, etc, I'll go for that. The details of what is done/how it's done matter, a lot.

 

[Acujeff]

Well, a republican put John Roberts in, so don't count your chickens before they're hatched

Roberts is not the problem. In fact, he has been a key advocate of the RKBA.

We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in the Heller and McDonald decisions confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush, often labeled not pro gun enough, appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-2A majority and obtain those decisions.

However, the minority opinion by the other four progressive Justices was that the Second Amendment: - did not protect a private right of armed self-defense - does not apply to the states - does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context. If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

It could still happen. The composition of the Court can change and prior decisions can be overturned. The current anti-gun Justices have already stated their intention to do exactly that. Anti-2A Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken”, that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia” and she looks forward to the day a “future, wiser court“ overturns Heller. John Paul Stevens told Time magazine the one thing in particular he would change about the American judicial system “I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong.” Stephen Breyer announced on national television his continuing opposition to a real Second Amendment right.

Obama has already appointed fiercely anti-Second Amendment Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. The next President elect may be able to appoint up to four new Justices. All the anti-2A Justices need is one more “anti” to get a majority of five and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

If that happens we’ll never see a pro-RKBA victory again in our lifetime.

 

[RenegadeGlocker]

Well, a republican put John Roberts in, so don't count your chickens before they're hatched

And Kennedy.

 

[RenegadeGlocker]

I do NOT want the federal government forcing states to go shall-issue. That's a bad thing.

.

The govt does not force them, the Constitution does.

 

[RenegadeGlocker]

If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

Yep, and several very pro-gunners are getting old. Next election will determine who picks their replacements.

The future of 2A wil be decided in 2016.

 

[Warp]

The govt does not force them, the Constitution does.

The Constitution forces states to require permits in order to carry guns?

What Constitution are you referring to??

 

[RenegadeGlocker]

The Constitution forces states to require permits in order to carry guns?

What Constitution are you referring to??

Funny.

I misread what you wrote....

 

[Warp]

Funny.

I misread what you wrote....

Details...like I said...forcing/requiring shall issue is in fact forcing states to violate our Right to keep and bear arms. We could go for forcing Constitutional carry, as we know it to be called, or simply saying that you can't do May Issue...but requiring a permit even if it's "shall issue" is still an explicit and direction violation to the Bill of Rights.

 

[IndyGunFreak]

Yep, and several very pro-gunners are getting old. Next election will determine who picks their replacements.

The future of 2A wil be decided in 2016.

I was thinking that earlier today. Scalia and Kennedy are knocking on the door of 80, Ginsburg is 82. Assuming the next President serves 8yrs, Those 3 will almost certainly be replaced by the next President.

Thomas and the others can probably still get through another 8yr election cycle before they are replaced (assuming they stay healthy, etc.)

 

[wiskeyVI]

Details...like I said...forcing/requiring shall issue is in fact forcing states to violate our Right to keep and bear arms. We could go for forcing Constitutional carry, as we know it to be called, or simply saying that you can't do May Issue...but requiring a permit even if it's "shall issue" is still an explicit and direction violation to the Bill of Rights.

I agree with this, but if the states would take their rightful position in all this, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS has an opinion on. It's a states right issue as long as it doesn't violate the constitution/ bill of rights and the feds don't step out of the enumerated powers...but we know how that's gone!!!

 

[Cloud9]

After Hillary takes office and several justices retire during her reign, all the free states are going to start looking like CA....

 

[G-34]

And what the hell are us gun owning people going to do if heller gets overturned???

Just food for thought....

 

[Warp]

After Hillary takes office and several justices retire during her reign, all the free states are going to start looking like CA....

Yeah because Obama is all about the Right to keep and bare arms and all we need for sweeping gun control is a president willing to sign it LMAO

 

[Cloud9]

Yeah because Obama is all about the Right to keep and bare arms and all we need for sweeping gun control is a president willing to sign it LMAO

I don't remember seeing a gay marriage bill on the legislative floor.... :whistling:

Once there are enough justices on the bench.... all it takes is 5-4....

 

[Warp]

I don't remember seeing a gay marriage bill on the legislative floor.... :whistling:

Once there are enough justices on the bench.... all it takes is 5-4....

I don't remember seeing the president of the United States legalizing gay marriage.

And I don't remember seeing the legislative floor even vote on gun control let alone pass it.

So, I'm confused...to what are you referring??

 

[TK-421]

I don't remember seeing a gay marriage bill on the legislative floor.... :whistling:

Once there are enough justices on the bench.... all it takes is 5-4....

If there was a bill that required citizens to get a marriage license, then there's your gay marriage bill right there. The SCOTUS wasn't making new laws, simply abolishing the illegal practice of trying to say that Citizen A can get married to Citizen B, but Citizen C can't get married to Citizen D because Citizen's C and D are of the same sex and you find that icky.