Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by dglockster, Jan 20, 2012.
This court decision is definitely not good!
If you have any more info on this I would like to read more. Additionally, I am looking for information on concealed carry in TX with a Utah permit. If anyone has info on the TX/Utah reciprocity I would really like to be guided to it if this is not the appropriate place to ask.
Utah in Tx is not valid anymore. Utah changed their law. You must have your home state license before getting a Utah license. The CHL classes are now geared towards Florida here. If you had one before they changed the law it is still good until it expires.
Just something to think about when you're even considering taking court opinions such as this to heart. Had Heller won at any level, DC wouldn't have pushed the case and it would have stopped right there and never been heard by the Supreme Court.
In other words this is not only expected but the best scenario because if the NRA wants this heard at circuit or higher they must lose to ensure it gets appealed.
Haven't read the judge's decision in this case, but I always assumed that progressive judges would ignore the words "such as" from the Heller decision when ruling that guns outside of the home are baaaaaad. The SCOTUS ruling indicates that self defense within the home is ONE EXAMPLE of a traditionally lawful purpose.
Unfortunately SCOTUS did leave an opening for restrictions on firearms in Heller. This case and others may eventually determine what those restrictions could be.
And any restrictions would be in violation of the Constitution... thereby illegal and not to be followed by Americans. If more Americans would step up and say no and not abide by laws that violate the Constitution, as intended, we wouldn't be having the isses we do now.
Like it or not there will always be some man made limited restriction on any natural god given right. Unless of course your OK with; a convicted murderer walking into a gun shop and buying a firearm legally with the intent to harm someone else, or someone who has mental or psychological problems and is a danger to themselves and others walking in and buying a firearm legally.
Much as one cannot yell fire in a theater is a limit on one's 1st Amendment rights, there will be some limit to the 2nd.
I wish I didn't have to have ask my state government for the legal permission to be able to buy a handgun or to carry said handgun around in public. But I do. Unfortunately a great many more people, including gun owners, feel that it is appropriate to license who can buy and carry a handgun in my state. I wish my state didn't have an AWB, but we do, and the citizens, again including some firearm owners, see no reason to overturn said AWB.
In a fantasy world where everyone abides by the Constitution and Bill of Rights these firearm restrictions would not exist. However, in the real world, there are a great many progressives, some of whom are also gun owners, who think the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a living document, subject to change. And they have judges and politicians who go along with that line of thinking and shape our current laws even if you or I think those laws are in violation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Progressives have been busy for the last 100+ years twisting the founding documents, it will take many years to untwist them.
I actually like this court decision. As others have already pointed out, carry of weapons (contrary to popular - or wishful - belief) was NOT incorporated to the states in either Heller or McDonald. The Court made MENTION of it, but since that wasn't the issue at hand, they didn't take that step (that whole "legislating from the bench" thing; they only answered the question put to them).
So, with that being the case, there needs to be more legal actions and "set-backs" to get back in front of SCOTUS so that they can take up THIS issue.
From reading the Heller decision, it SEEMS like what they're leaning toward is not about Concealed Carry, but that they will say the states have to allow SOME form of carry. Concealed Carry won't be required, but if not, then Open Carry must be allowed. That, BTW, is simply my speculation based on the opinion issued, but that's how I read it.
This case could be the one that gets that issue ruled on.