Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

You need a "good and substantial reason" to exercise your righ

Recommended Posts

In Maryland and a few other states, that is.

 

The Supreme Court won't review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

...

Maryland is one of about half a dozen so-called "may issue" states where residents must demonstrate a reason to get a permit to carry a gun in public. Those states include California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii. The legislation in some of those states is also the subject of legal challenges.

 

The Supreme Court has said that the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is self-defense. That purpose is not confined to homes or businesses and the Gun Nutter thread has plenty of examples of people who needed to defend themselves in other places.

 

"May issue" states turn the concept of rights upside down. The government needs a good and substantial reason to restrict them, which is the way things are in "shall issue" states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those states seem to be paying attention to the first part of the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a piece of frickin paper?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all ought to rally around a repeal and replace of the 2nd amendment. One that doesn't refer to the well regulated part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh - who are we kidding? The constitution doesn't provide any remaining limits on government. Why would we think the 2nd amendment has any teeth left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all ought to rally around a repeal and replace of the 2nd amendment. One that doesn't refer to the well regulated part.

 

 

Ed's vision of a well-regulated militia: Paul Revere riding along yelling, "The British are coming! Get inside where you are allowed to carry your guns!" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, If the Supremes won't review, seems they have a different opinion than you do, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, If the Supremes won't review, seems they have a different opinion than you do, no?

 

 

No, they refuse to take cases for a lot of different reasons. I'm pretty sure some agree that second amendment rights exist outside the home or workplace and that the concept of a protected right is inverted by these laws, but they may not consider the issue ripe, may be looking at cases from other circuits, may think something is technically wrong with this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Maryland and a few other states, that is.

 

The Supreme Court won't review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

...

Maryland is one of about half a dozen so-called "may issue" states where residents must demonstrate a reason to get a permit to carry a gun in public. Those states include California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii. The legislation in some of those states is also the subject of legal challenges.

 

The Supreme Court has said that the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is self-defense. That purpose is not confined to homes or businesses and the Gun Nutter thread has plenty of examples of people who needed to defend themselves in other places.

 

"May issue" states turn the concept of rights upside down. The government needs a good and substantial reason to restrict them, which is the way things are in "shall issue" states.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In Maryland and a few other states, that is.

 

The Supreme Court won't review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

...

Maryland is one of about half a dozen so-called "may issue" states where residents must demonstrate a reason to get a permit to carry a gun in public. Those states include California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii. The legislation in some of those states is also the subject of legal challenges.

 

The Supreme Court has said that the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is self-defense. That purpose is not confined to homes or businesses and the Gun Nutter thread has plenty of examples of people who needed to defend themselves in other places.

 

"May issue" states turn the concept of rights upside down. The government needs a good and substantial reason to restrict them, which is the way things are in "shall issue" states.

+1

 

 

Personally? I'm getting a bit sick & tired of being 'governed'. Really. I don't need any governing as I'm perfectly able to manage my own life without needing a fuking babysitter.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In Maryland and a few other states, that is.

 

The Supreme Court won't review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

...

Maryland is one of about half a dozen so-called "may issue" states where residents must demonstrate a reason to get a permit to carry a gun in public. Those states include California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii. The legislation in some of those states is also the subject of legal challenges.

 

The Supreme Court has said that the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is self-defense. That purpose is not confined to homes or businesses and the Gun Nutter thread has plenty of examples of people who needed to defend themselves in other places.

 

"May issue" states turn the concept of rights upside down. The government needs a good and substantial reason to restrict them, which is the way things are in "shall issue" states.

+1

 

 

Personally? I'm getting a bit sick & tired of being 'governed'. Really. I don't need any governing as I'm perfectly able to manage my own life without needing a fuking babysitter.....

You should consider moving to Somalia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is a lot closer.

 

On second thought, it's "governed" -by drug cartels. But that's true 2nd amendment "freedom', isn't it? "Militias" "regulating" themselves. Doesn't get any better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is a lot closer.

 

On second thought, it's "governed" -by drug cartels. But that's true 2nd amendment "freedom', isn't it? "Militias" "regulating" themselves. Doesn't get any better than that.

Are they really well regulated? That's what separates us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they practice regularly and are well trained, put in good order, then yes they are (within the context of the Amendment as written at the time).

 

Things mean what they mean when they were put to paper, not what others later wish they meant by stretching modern linguistics. Those who disagree with what the Amendment says should advocate a replacement based upon more contemporary language and upon contemporary necessities, if any different than the historically-interpreted ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is a lot closer.

 

On second thought, it's "governed" -by drug cartels. But that's true 2nd amendment "freedom', isn't it? "Militias" "regulating" themselves. Doesn't get any better than that.

 

Or...

 

Mexican citizens are tired of Mexican gun control and the fact that only the government and gangsters have guns. Regrettably, it has gone on long enough that all they have are shitty old bolt action rifles and shotguns, but those can at least be some help when combined with determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article, Tom----thanx for that......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit disappointed the SCOTUS didn't take this case. But as Tom correctly points out, they pass on many cases for many reasons. I would say it would be wrong to read too much into this.

 

Having said that, I'm slightly OK with states determining their own way. I think they are on shaky constitutional ground with requiring a "need" for a gun. Very shaky ground. But what works in rural FL doesn't always work perfect in NYC. And vice versa. I'm somewhat ok with this being a lower priority than other constitutional questions.

 

And I assume that this "need" only applies to CCW permits in the difference between may issue and shall issue. I don't think it prevents anyone from carrying a weapon outside the home for SD, you just can't conceal it. That's long been regulated in most states.

 

I do have a very serious problem with a local Sheriff making an arbitrary decision as to your "need" and obviously that will be abused unless you have money and connections like we see currently in Kali and NY for instance. I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. But at the end of the day, it does sorta come down to states rights about how they issue those permits. I don't agree with May Issue in the slightest - but I'm not going to march on the SCOTUS over it.

 

EDIT: This whole need thing sounds very AUS like. Yuck. I don't like the gubmint telling me what I "need" when I already have a "right" to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If life is an unalienable right, then so is self defense. That being said, imo, the survivors of anyone murdered in Maryland should get to sue the state for damages for civil rights violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mexico is a lot closer.

 

On second thought, it's "governed" -by drug cartels. But that's true 2nd amendment "freedom', isn't it? "Militias" "regulating" themselves. Doesn't get any better than that.

Are they really well regulated? That's what separates us.

 

Internally they are pretty strict. They have their own codes. Not chewing gum in line, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. ...

 

 

That was tried in California already. Now what? ;)

 

How can you ban OC? It is the very essence of the 2A. The 2A doesn't say you just have the right to "Keep" arms, you can also "BEAR" them as well. How did this pass the SC much less the 9th CC?? Well, never mind on the 9th - they seriously are a broken court. But how does this not get chucked by the SC???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. ...

 

 

That was tried in California already. Now what? ;)

 

How can you ban OC? It is the very essence of the 2A. The 2A doesn't say you just have the right to "Keep" arms, you can also "BEAR" them as well. How did this pass the SC much less the 9th CC?? Well, never mind on the 9th - they seriously are a broken court. But how does this not get chucked by the SC???

 

They were openly carrying unloaded guns, since loaded ones would have been illegal. So openly carrying unloaded guns got banned too. I think the 2A line was crossed much earlier, when they banned open carry of loaded guns. Adding unloaded ones to the mix is just icing on the cake.

 

OC is banned in Florida unless you are on your way to/from hunting or fishing.

 

It's also banned in Illinois, which was a central point in the Moore v Madigan case (the one about whether the second amendment applies outside the home). The court said that if they were going to ban open carry, they had to allow some kind of carry, so they had to issue concealed weapons permits.

 

The line the courts appear to be drawing is that some form of carry outside the home must be allowed and permitted concealed carry counts as allowed, even if some states only grant the right to deserving citizens who can demonstrate a need for their right. SCOTUS has said that the core lawful purpose of the right is self-defense, but just wanting to defend yourself in the way that the CDC says is most effective and least likely to result in injury to yourself is not sufficient demonstration of a need. You are assumed NOT to need your second amendment rights unless you can prove you do need them.

 

It's inverted, as I said, and if we were talking about any other protected right, the likely result would be obvious to all: minorities will be found to be less deserving of their rights than whites. That's sometimes bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interview with Gura on the SCOTUS refusal to hear the topic case


...Mr. Gura did not want to speculate on why the high court did not take up Woollard, but offered that perhaps the justices are waiting to see further splits on the carry issue in the lower courts before stepping in to resolve.


The attorney of the firm Gura & Possessky said his next step is to file a petition next month for Drake v. Filko, which challenges New Jersey’s requirement to show “justifiable need” to get a carry permit.


On a larger scale, the the lead attorney in the landmark Heller case in 2008 is deeply concerned about lower courts turning away most gun-control cases by simply deferring to the legislature.


“The Supreme Court needs to rule on the lower courts using rational basis review, which it clearly forbade in Heller” said Mr. Gura. The civil right lawyer is referring to Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion which said that a higher level of scrutiny must be applied when judging restrictions on constitutional rights, especially fundamental ones.


“If the Court doesn’t address the issue, then the Second Amendment is largely a dead letter — it would become mostly unenforceable because there is no such thing as a gun law for which the legislature or police can’t offer a hypothetical justification.”

 

The whining and crying when (not if) a court decides to rely on judicial treatment of second amendment rights in determining how other protected rights will be treated will be ironic and amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. ...

 

 

That was tried in California already. Now what? ;)

 

How can you ban OC? It is the very essence of the 2A. The 2A doesn't say you just have the right to "Keep" arms, you can also "BEAR" them as well. How did this pass the SC much less the 9th CC?? Well, never mind on the 9th - they seriously are a broken court. But how does this not get chucked by the SC???

 

The principle of no right being absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. ...

That was tried in California already. Now what? ;)
How can you ban OC? It is the very essence of the 2A. The 2A doesn't say you just have the right to "Keep" arms, you can also "BEAR" them as well. How did this pass the SC much less the 9th CC?? Well, never mind on the 9th - they seriously are a broken court. But how does this not get chucked by the SC???
The principle of no right being absolute.

That might not be right. Might is right.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, If the Supremes won't review, seems they have a different opinion than you do, no?

 

 

No, they refuse to take cases for a lot of different reasons. I'm pretty sure some agree that second amendment rights exist outside the home or workplace and that the concept of a protected right is inverted by these laws, but they may not consider the issue ripe, may be looking at cases from other circuits, may think something is technically wrong with this case.

They're waiting for the decisions from the other states so they can pick a better one to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... I think residents who want to should start carrying open in those "may issue" states and force the challenge that way. ...

 

 

That was tried in California already. Now what? ;)

 

How can you ban OC? It is the very essence of the 2A. The 2A doesn't say you just have the right to "Keep" arms, you can also "BEAR" them as well. How did this pass the SC much less the 9th CC?? Well, never mind on the 9th - they seriously are a broken court. But how does this not get chucked by the SC???

 

The principle of no right being absolute.

 

That principle has been stretched too far when the working assumption in the law is that you do not need your rights unless you can prove that you do, as in Maryland and the other "may issue" states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, should people have to STFU wrt their 1A rights unless they can prove that they have a compelling "need" to use them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, should people have to STFU wrt their 1A rights unless they can prove that they have a compelling "need" to use them?

You need a permit to hold a rally in a public place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking individual rights, not collective ones. :P

Corporations are people too.

 

IMO that's a false equivalence. Guns and words are different things.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO that's a false equivalence. Guns and words are different things.

 

You're right..... words are FAR more dangerous and have killed far more in human history than guns ever have. Something about pens and swords come to mind......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO that's a false equivalence. Guns and words are different things.

 

 

Fair enough, how about guns then?

 

Do you agree that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or should we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the 5 Supremes that signed on to the majority opinion in Heller have given all the opinion they care to give, aren't interested in taking up the issue again, and are very unlikely to strike it down if they did. That decision left a lot of room for locals to regulate arms in their areas. Not quite as much as they had before, but still a heck of a lot.

 

An example: NYC's laws are will remain constitutional for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the 5 Supremes that signed on to the majority opinion in Heller have given all the opinion they care to give, aren't interested in taking up the issue again, and are very unlikely to strike it down if they did. That decision left a lot of room for locals to regulate arms in their areas. Not quite as much as they had before, but still a heck of a lot.

 

An example: NYC's laws are will remain constitutional for the foreseeable future.

 

Fair enough again, but I was not asking for a prediction about what the courts might do.

 

The question you answered would have looked like this, had I asked it:

 

Do you believe the courts will find that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or will they find that we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

 

But that was not what was asked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think if the 5 Supremes that signed on to the majority opinion in Heller have given all the opinion they care to give, aren't interested in taking up the issue again, and are very unlikely to strike it down if they did. That decision left a lot of room for locals to regulate arms in their areas. Not quite as much as they had before, but still a heck of a lot.

 

An example: NYC's laws are will remain constitutional for the foreseeable future.

 

Fair enough again, but I was not asking for a prediction about what the courts might do.

 

The question you answered would have looked like this, had I asked it:

 

Do you believe the courts will find that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or will they find that we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

 

But that was not what was asked...

 

It was a reply to posts 1 & 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

 

 

Why would you want to do that? Avoiding victim disarmament zones? Understandable. Gun shows are much safer places.

 

 

 

I think if the 5 Supremes that signed on to the majority opinion in Heller have given all the opinion they care to give, aren't interested in taking up the issue again, and are very unlikely to strike it down if they did. That decision left a lot of room for locals to regulate arms in their areas. Not quite as much as they had before, but still a heck of a lot.

 

An example: NYC's laws are will remain constitutional for the foreseeable future.

 

Fair enough again, but I was not asking for a prediction about what the courts might do.

 

The question you answered would have looked like this, had I asked it:

 

Do you believe the courts will find that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or will they find that we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

 

But that was not what was asked...

 

It was a reply to posts 1 & 9.

 

Odd enough. Do you have an opinion on the question from post 37?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

 

 

Why would you want to do that? Avoiding victim disarmament zones? Understandable. Gun shows are much safer places.

 

Actually, gives me information in order to make a decision. I had breakfast Sunday with my kid next to a bunch of cops. they were openly carrying. i didn't feel threatened but come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have been between them and the cash register, in case any sunday-school skipping meth addict try to rob the till.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

 

 

Why would you want to do that? Avoiding victim disarmament zones? Understandable. Gun shows are much safer places.

Actually, gives me information in order to make a decision. I had breakfast Sunday with my kid next to a bunch of cops. they were openly carrying. i didn't feel threatened but come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have been between them and the cash register, in case any sunday-school skipping meth addict try to rob the till.

You are honestly worried about that? You're a lot more likely to drown sailing, if you survive the much more dangerous car ride to the marina.

 

But I think you know that and are not being honest, just trying to interfere in the choices of others based on your irrational fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sling mud much lately? Can't just have a conversation? If I am exercising my 1st amendment rights, you have every right to get up and walk away, or not read the post.

I'm asking for similar treatment for the 2nd. If you want to exercise, fine, i'd like to know so that I can get up and walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

 

 

Why would you want to do that? Avoiding victim disarmament zones? Understandable. Gun shows are much safer places.

 

>

 

I think if the 5 Supremes that signed on to the majority opinion in Heller have given all the opinion they care to give, aren't interested in taking up the issue again, and are very unlikely to strike it down if they did. That decision left a lot of room for locals to regulate arms in their areas. Not quite as much as they had before, but still a heck of a lot.

 

An example: NYC's laws are will remain constitutional for the foreseeable future.

 

Fair enough again, but I was not asking for a prediction about what the courts might do.

 

The question you answered would have looked like this, had I asked it:

 

Do you believe the courts will find that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or will they find that we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

 

But that was not what was asked...

 

It was a reply to posts 1 & 9.

 

Odd enough. Do you have an opinion on the question from post 37?

 

 

 

Different horses for different courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sling mud much lately? Can't just have a conversation? If I am exercising my 1st amendment rights, you have every right to get up and walk away, or not read the post.

 

I'm asking for similar treatment for the 2nd. If you want to exercise, fine, i'd like to know so that I can get up and walk away.

 

 

I thought only Favre fans like myself (oh, and our courts) compared how different rights are treated!

 

Looks fun. Let me try:

 

If I want to exercise my constitutional right to privacy, does that mean you have a right to know what I'm keeping private?

 

Since you're a fan of open carry, what steps have you taken to make that legal again out in your state? You are not suggesting eliminating the one legal method of carrying outside the home and replacing it with nothing, are you?

 

If there is a rational basis for your supposed need to know when others are exercising their rights, I'd like to see it. It seems based on such an unlikely fear that it's, well, irrational. Hoplophobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you agree that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or should we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

Different horses for different courses.

Your answer makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you agree that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or should we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

Different horses for different courses.

Your answer makes no sense.

 

An old saw about different situations call for different critters was too difficult to link to the question about different communities and different laws? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do you agree that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or should we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

Different horses for different courses.

Your answer makes no sense.

 

An old saw about different situations call for different critters was too difficult to link to the question about different communities and different laws? Really?

 

I figured out which question you were answering, but the answer makes no sense.

 

The question is about the nature of the right and whether we have it absent a showing of need. "Either way" is not an answer to that question.

 

I think our courts will eventually answer the question and can't see them going with a "right" that does not exist unless the citizen can prove a need for that right. You earlier speculated that the Heller majority would not want to take up the issue again, but they already did and they applied the second amendment to state and local governments in the McDonald case. Didn't think that would happen, didja?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Do you agree that people should have to show a need to carry them in public, as in "may issue" states, or should we have that right unless the government shows some reason we should not, as in "shall issue" states?

Different horses for different courses.

Your answer makes no sense.

 

An old saw about different situations call for different critters was too difficult to link to the question about different communities and different laws? Really?

 

I figured out which question you were answering, but the answer makes no sense.

 

The question is about the nature of the right and whether we have it absent a showing of need. "Either way" is not an answer to that question.

 

I think our courts will eventually answer the question and can't see them going with a "right" that does not exist unless the citizen can prove a need for that right. You earlier speculated that the Heller majority would not want to take up the issue again, but they already did and they applied the second amendment to state and local governments in the McDonald case. Didn't think that would happen, didja?

 

"Either way" is an answer to that question. Different horses for different courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we both have the right absent a showing of need and do not have the right absent a showing of need?

 

Both being true makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense, if a municipality decides it's OK, one has the right, if it doesn't then one doesn't. I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense, if a municipality decides it's OK, one has the right, if it doesn't then one doesn't. I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter.

 

Really? I think from the cries from the heavy gun control cities that everybody else needs to do what they tell them that might be a contributing factor to the problem.

 

Maybe they should put gates up at the citizens expense and search everybody coming into town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a long way from saying a right does not depend on a showing of need to "states must have no discretion" but slay that strawman if you must, Mark.

 

You know what the Supreme Court calls disparate treatment of rights in different areas? A conflict among the circuits. They have some tolerance for those, but it is not unlimited. At some point, they step in and resolve conflicts among the circuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"States must have no discretion" wasn't what I wrote. Who are you quoting?

 

 

Your strawman version of me, of course, edited for brevity.

 

You can't pick up the similarity between "states must have no discretion" and "I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter"? They seem pretty similar to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe that people should be allowed to carry, but they should be visible and not concealed. I'd like to be able to make a decision on where I go based on how many firearms are in that locale. Today, I cannot as people hide them.

 

 

Why would you want to do that? Avoiding victim disarmament zones? Understandable. Gun shows are much safer places.

 

Actually, gives me information in order to make a decision. I had breakfast Sunday with my kid next to a bunch of cops. they were openly carrying. i didn't feel threatened but come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have been between them and the cash register, in case any sunday-school skipping meth addict try to rob the till.

 

Most cops do not fire their gun at a person in their entire careers, so it's unlikely that any given cop will fire his gun at all.

 

A career is long, a stop in a diner short. The odds against a cop firing his gun during that time period go up into astronomical territory.

 

In the extremely unlikely event that a cop fires a gun and the even more unlikely event that it happens while you are present, there is still a good chance you would not be hit.

 

Cops go looking for trouble as their job. Concealed weapons carriers are even less likely than cops to fire their guns.

 

But just in case a whole pile of extremely unlikely things happen all at once, you want to interfere with how others prepare themselves for unlikely things.

 

If you are really so sensitive to tiny risks, I don't see how you ever leave the house.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"States must have no discretion" wasn't what I wrote. Who are you quoting?

 

Your strawman version of me, of course, edited for brevity.

 

You can't pick up the similarity between "states must have no discretion" and "I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter"? They seem pretty similar to me.

 

 

So, what discretion in this matter do you believe the states should have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"States must have no discretion" wasn't what I wrote. Who are you quoting?

 

Your strawman version of me, of course, edited for brevity.

 

You can't pick up the similarity between "states must have no discretion" and "I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter"? They seem pretty similar to me.

 

So, what discretion in this matter do you believe the states should have?

 

The kind exercised in the majority of states, where you do not need to show a need to exercise your rights. They still have different standards and tests for different kinds of permits and the permits allow different things. Plenty of discretion, none of which I have complained about.

 

The common thread: the government must show a reason to deny your rights instead of you showing a need to have your rights.

 

Forcing people to show a special need before they are granted their rights is a level of "discretion" that destroys the concept of a right. Are there other rights for which we must show a need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing people to show a special need before they are granted their rights is a level of "discretion" that destroys the concept of a right. Are there other rights for which we must show a need?

I can't think of another right that has potential lethal outcomes. Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in another court district...

 

A federal judge in Nebraska has ordered the state to stop enforcing a law that prevents legal, non-citizens from getting a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued the ruling last week after an agreement was reached between the Nebraska attorney general's office and two gun-rights groups that sued the state.

The lawsuit argued that the law violates the equal protection rights of lawful, permanent residents who would otherwise qualify for a permit.

 

 

Seems that the federal judge thinks that guy just has his rights, with no requirement to show a special need for them at all.

 

If some federal judges think we have second amendment rights and others think second amendment rights are only for special citizens who can prove a need, the Supreme Court will step in to resolve that situation one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"States must have no discretion" wasn't what I wrote. Who are you quoting?

 

Your strawman version of me, of course, edited for brevity.

 

You can't pick up the similarity between "states must have no discretion" and "I think you just don't like states and municipalities having any discretion in this matter"? They seem pretty similar to me.

 

So, what discretion in this matter do you believe the states should have?

 

The kind exercised in the majority of states, where you do not need to show a need to exercise your rights. They still have different standards and tests for different kinds of permits and the permits allow different things. Plenty of discretion, none of which I have complained about.

 

The common thread: the government must show a reason to deny your rights instead of you showing a need to have your rights.

 

Forcing people to show a special need before they are granted their rights is a level of "discretion" that destroys the concept of a right. Are there other rights for which we must show a need?

 

Looks like a "none" (in this matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The kind exercised in the majority of states, where you do not need to show a need to exercise your rights. They still have different standards and tests for different kinds of permits and the permits allow different things. Plenty of discretion, none of which I have complained about....

 

Looks like a "none" (in this matter).

 

Look harder. You quoted examples of discretion that don't bother me and then said they don't exist.

 

States treat our weapons permits and second amendment rights differently, as I said. They have the discretion to do that.

 

They should not have the discretion to dole out rights at their pleasure, but even in the case of the few states that treat our 2A rights as privileges, that is the only discretion I am talking about taking away here. They can still exercise the discretion to have different tests, different standards, different fees, different permit lengths, and permit different activities.

 

They just should not be able to create a default assumption that we do not have our rights unless we can prove a special need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I quote examples of discretion and where did I say they didn't exist?

 

Btw, still looks like "none" (in this matter), although it's getting harder to sort out. "At their pleasure" is very difficult to distinguish from "discretion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I quote examples of discretion and where did I say they didn't exist?

 

Btw, still looks like "none" (in this matter), although it's getting harder to sort out. "At their pleasure" is very difficult to distinguish from "discretion".

You have the right to make a statement of our choosing. If you choose to give up that right by either remaining silent or expressing your own opinion, our statement will be ascribed to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where did I quote examples of discretion and where did I say they didn't exist?

...

 

 

If the state and locals were required to have the same tests, same standards, same fees, same permit lengths, and same permitted activities, it would be fair to say they have no discretion in weapons permits. Instead, they exercise the discretion to have different tests, different standards, different fees, different permit lengths, and permit different activities. You said that my objection to need-based rights must mean I object to "any" discretion in weapons permits by the states. I don't know why you keep doing that, since I keep supplying examples of discretion in weapons permits by the states that do not bother me.

 

None of those create the constitutional problem of permits that require a showing of need.

 

In that one area, yes, I would like the tables turned and would like to see the government demonstrate a need to deny rights to citizens rather than citizens demonstrating a need before being granted their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Tom, Mark denies the right of the individual to have a weapon more power than a sharp stick. He thinks from all I've read that the state possesses the sole right to self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Where did I quote examples of discretion and where did I say they didn't exist?

...

 

 

If the state and locals were required to have the same tests, same standards, same fees, same permit lengths, and same permitted activities, it would be fair to say they have no discretion in weapons permits. Instead, they exercise the discretion to have different tests, different standards, different fees, different permit lengths, and permit different activities. You said that my objection to need-based rights must mean I object to "any" discretion in weapons permits by the states. I don't know why you keep doing that, since I keep supplying examples of discretion in weapons permits by the states that do not bother me.

 

None of those create the constitutional problem of permits that require a showing of need.

 

In that one area, yes, I would like the tables turned and would like to see the government demonstrate a need to deny rights to citizens rather than citizens demonstrating a need before being granted their rights.

What I wrote was "any discretion in this area", and in the context of a discussion about carrying. However, let's just pretend I didn't. What I actually think and write is less interesting than than what you imagine I do. Please continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only discretion that really matters is the government's discretion to selectively give rights to some people?

 

The various ways that the states treat carrying differently are not evidence that they have discretion to treat carrying differently?

 

I can only conclude that you are unfamiliar with the definition of discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only discretion that really matters is the government's discretion to selectively give rights to some people?

 

The various ways that the states treat carrying differently are not evidence that they have discretion to treat carrying differently?

 

I can only conclude that you are unfamiliar with the definition of discretion.

 

You could help me understand what my opinion is on this if you would describe the difference, to you, between "at their pleasure" and having "discretion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You could help me understand what my opinion is on this if you would describe the difference, to you, between "at their pleasure" and having "discretion".

 

Allowing the possession of weapons in public "at the pleasure" of the government means exactly that: you can exercise second amendment rights if the government feels you are worthy. That describes "may issue" states.

 

In the "shall issue" states, second amendment rights are not doled out at the pleasure of government officials. A citizen has them unless the government can show a reason that citizen does not. Those states still have and exercise a wide range of discretion on standards, testing, fees, allowed weapons, allowed places and activities, etc.

 

Your assertion that I want to do away with all that discretion is the typical distraction refrain: "oh, you oppose this gun law, so you must oppose all gun laws, so you must be a nut."

 

I thought you already gave your opinion on this: you are fine with need based second amendment rights where those exist and inherent second amendment rights where those exist.

 

This whole hijack has been about your assertion that I want to do away with "any" local discretion. Keep trying to ascribe that view to me if you must.

 

I'll keep saying that a right that depends on the pleasure of government officials and can be denied for any reason, or even for no reason, is no right at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Breyer, dissenting in the Heller case:

 

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

...

 

...the majority’s decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems. The majority says that it leaves the District “a variety of tools for combating” such problems. Ante, at 64. It fails to list even one seemingly adequate replacement for the law it strikes down. I can understand how reasonable individuals can disagree about the merits of strict gun control as a crime-control measure, even in a totally urbanized area. But I cannot understand how one can take from the elected branches of government the right to decide whether to insist upon a handgun-free urban populace in a city now facing a serious crime problem and which, in the future, could well face environmental or other emergencies that threaten the breakdown of law and order.

 

The residents who have to commute through that serious crime problem, and who will be left to fend for themselves in the event of a breakdown of law and order, have a right to defend themselves with the most common and (according to the CDC) most effective means they wish, that's how. That's the individual right the second amendment protects, and if it is need-based, it means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Breyer, dissenting in the Heller case:

 

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

...

 

...the majority’s decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems. The majority says that it leaves the District “a variety of tools for combating” such problems. Ante, at 64. It fails to list even one seemingly adequate replacement for the law it strikes down. I can understand how reasonable individuals can disagree about the merits of strict gun control as a crime-control measure, even in a totally urbanized area. But I cannot understand how one can take from the elected branches of government the right to decide whether to insist upon a handgun-free urban populace in a city now facing a serious crime problem and which, in the future, could well face environmental or other emergencies that threaten the breakdown of law and order.

 

The residents who have to commute through that serious crime problem, and who will be left to fend for themselves in the event of a breakdown of law and order, have a right to defend themselves with the most common and (according to the CDC) most effective means they wish, that's how. That's the individual right the second amendment protects, and if it is need-based, it means nothing.

 

Breyer seems to contradict himself (bolded). If a city faced the breakdown of law & order (as well as serious crime rates) - it is precisely for this reason that the citizen's must be able to protect themselves. That whole statement takes the argument away that we should rely on the authorities for protection and therefore don't need personal firearms. If there were no authorities around to protect us, we would be the most vulnerable to opportunistic predators.

 

Of course that could never happen in a 1st world nation like the US...... (cough, cough New Orleans) right? Its not like we ever have any natural disasters (cough, cough Hurricane Andrew). Or mass civil unrest and violence (cough, cough Rodney King Riots)? That could never happen here, right?

 

Although the day began relatively quiet, by mid-morning on the second day violence appeared widespread and unchecked as heavy looting and fires were witnessed across Los Angeles County. Korean-Americans, seeing the police force's abandonment of Koreatown, organized armed security teams composed of store owners, who defended their livelihoods from assault by the mobs. Open gun battles were televised as Korean shopkeepers exchanged gunfire with armed looters.[31]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad those Koreans felt it necessary to exacerbate the breakdown of law and order with their guns, huh?

 

That's Breyer's view, anyway. Mine is that they provided for the common defense by paying taxes and when that system broke down on them, they provided for their own common defense with their own guns, just like the second amendment says they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Stossel fills out a 17 page form, pays a $430 fee, and police tell him they'll "get back to him" on whether his need for second amendment rights is sufficient for them to be granted to him. 8.5 months later, they asked him back to the police station for another in-person interview. Turns out they wanted the original court documents from a wiretapping case that was dropped in 1996, and wanted some documentation of threats against him.

 

There are "kill John Stossel" websites! How is a non-famous citizen to document threats if that's not enough?

 

52 days later, he got his answer: "you failed to demonstrate a special need" to defend yourself. Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Robert DeNiro all demonstrated a "special need" and got NYC carry permits, but Stossel did not, nor did the military vet who lives in a NYC housing project where a man was beaten to death outside.

 

In practice, "special need" means only that the person asking for permission to exercise his rights has special political connections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Stossel fills out a 17 page form, pays a $430 fee, and police tell him they'll "get back to him" on whether his need for second amendment rights is sufficient for them to be granted to him. 8.5 months later, they asked him back to the police station for another in-person interview. Turns out they wanted the original court documents from a wiretapping case that was dropped in 1996, and wanted some documentation of threats against him.

 

There are "kill John Stossel" websites! How is a non-famous citizen to document threats if that's not enough?

 

52 days later, he got his answer: "you failed to demonstrate a special need" to defend yourself. Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Robert DeNiro all demonstrated a "special need" and got NYC carry permits, but Stossel did not, nor did the military vet who lives in a NYC housing project where a man was beaten to death outside.

 

In practice, "special need" means only that the person asking for permission to exercise his rights has special political connections.

What John Stossel obviously didn't understand was that the $430 fee was just the "official fee". Had he paid the fee to expedite the process (i.e. giving to the Mayor or Sheriff's campaign funds) - he would have gotten the gun permit with no problem.

 

I'm waiting for the requirement to demonstrate need to exercise your free speech rights. Also, I think you definitely have to prove why the gov't shouldn't use your home to house soldiers. Think of the money we could cut out of the Defense budget if we could house soldiers in people's homes. You don't "need" that spare bedroom, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A permit system that ensures only wealthy/politically connected people get to exercise their rights is regressive and troubling. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question..

If you actually buy a gun in one of these states, how do you get it to your house without taking it outside and violating the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answers vary by state, but the general answer is there are exceptions for transport and transported guns must generally be locked up during transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... if you want to keep guns, just keep guns, The Constitution protects your right to do that. But when you make stuff up to justify your Constitutional rights, then your disinformation discredits your actual reason for keeping guns.

 

You don't need a reason.

...

 

 

 

Thanks for your opinion on the "keep" part of the second amendment, Mike.

 

Does the same answer apply to the "bear arms" part? In some places, that right does not exist unless you can show a special need for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drake v Jerejian

 

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

 

Since the Supreme Court decided not to hear the cases related to 18-21 year old citizens, this one is next in line for consideration.

 

The amicus briefs on the linked page were filed just before the recent 9th Circuit decision in the Peruta case came down, so they do not note that split in the Circuit Court decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites