[Bluetick]

As the debate over gun rights heats up on Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition to hear a challenge to a key provision of New York state’s restrictive gun laws.

The high court without comment refused to take up a petition challenging a lower court’s upholding New York state’s requirement that citizens prove “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home......



The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in November in favor of the state.

“Our review of the history and tradition of firearm regulation does not ‘clearly demonstrate’ that limiting handgun possession in public to those who show a special need for self-protection is inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” Judge Richard C. Wesley wrote in the November opinion.

A group of New Yorkers challenging the requirement asked the Supreme Court in January to take up the case......



The question of whether or not carrying a gun for protection outside the home is a constitutional right is also being litigated elsewhere in the country.

A federal court in February denied a petition to rehear a December ruling that declared an Illinois law prohibiting people from carrying concealed handguns in public unconstitutional. The court had given the Illinois legislature 180 days to pass some kind of concealed-carry law.

Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he wants state Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal to the Supreme Court, but Ms. Madigan has indicated she wants to see what the legislature comes up with before making a decision.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...;utm_medium=RSS

 

[Bluetick]

The Supreme Court left in doubt Monday whether gun owners have a 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.

Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down a gun-rights challenge to a New York law that strictly limits who can legally carry a weapon when they are on the streets. To obtain a "concealed carry" permit, New Yorkers must convince a county official that they have a "special need for protection" that goes beyond living or working in a high-crime area............

Several gun owners who were denied a "concealed carry" permit sued, arguing they had a 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense.

Rather than hear their appeal, the high court let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have broad authority to regulate guns in public..........


The court's refusal to hear an appeal does not set a legal precedent, and the justices do not explain their reasons for turning away a case.

For now, however, the reach of the 2nd Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" remains uncertain.

In a pair of decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington and Chicago because they prohibited all private possession of handguns, including keeping a gun at home for self-defense. The justices did not address whether this right to self-defense includes a right to be armed in public.

Most states allow law-abiding gun owners to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

However, at least six states besides New York, including California and Illinois, have laws that make it difficult or nearly impossible for gun owners to obtain a permit that allows them to be armed in public.

Those laws are under challenge in the lower courts.

The Illinois law, the nation's strictest, was struck down in December by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. State lawmakers are considering a new law that would permit at least some gun owners to obtain a license for carrying a weapon.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has also heard several 2nd Amendment challenges to counties in California that routinely deny concealed-carry permits.

The justices may well revisit the issue after rulings by several other lower courts.




http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-guns-20130416,0,4417473.story

 

[brokenfoot]

They to busy on the gay rights to take up any thing from the bill of rights that has been writen.They can't make any new rights with a gun case

 

[Bumblehick]

I fear that the Supreme Court are as much shills/tools of the political process as any goofball elected/appointed w/o any clue about anything except their own agenda.

I'm not even convinced they'll have anything positive to add to this discussion from a 2A stance. Example, with a marginal Non-Liberal majority, the best they could do in the Heller case was say that the guvmn't can't say you CANNOT own a firearm in your own home. They left open, however, the ability of the guvmn't to arbitrarily define criteria you have to satisfy to own a gun, at whatever price tag they say you have to pay to exercise that right, and impose whatever limitations they whimsically define in terms of what it is exactly that you can own.

It's all arbitrary and leaves tremendous power in the hands of the guvmn't and little power at all in the hands of the people.

Example- under Heller the feds, a state or a city can basically ban all firearms except break-open action single shot 20 ga. shotguns, then require the paperwork needed to own that firearm as the equivalent to what you currently have to go through to own a machine gun. At no time did they ever say "you can't own a gun". Sure you can own a gun, you just have to pay thousands of $$$ and waste inordinate amounts of time complying w/the requirements, and the guvmn't has the ability at any time to change the rules in the middle of the game.

If anyone cares to explore the history of the colonies leading up to the Revolution, this arbitrariness is exactly what the Patriots were fighting against.

They can even make the laws apply differently to different people- example, in Maryland they recently banned the sale of "assault rifles"- After October 1, 2013, no Maryland citizen will be allowed to legally buy, for example, an AK47, or, if they already own one, a magazine with more than 10 rounds.

This applies to all Maryland citizens EXCEPT active duty or retired military or LE.

Question- on what justifiable basis can the state extend a 2A right arbitrarily to members of one profession?

With all due respect to active duty or retired military or LE, IMO it's unacceptable to extend to them in a completely arbitrary manner the ability to exercise rights denied to all other citizens. Why should they be able to walk into a gun store to buy an AR15 for plinking on their own time when nobody else can?

These are all dangerous precedents. What's next? The Department of Homeland Security says you can't submit an editorial to the newspaper unless you have a license to express an opinion- UNLESS you are a guvmn't employee, then you can express whatever you want? This 1st amendment example is not that different than the way, MD for example, is treating the 2A.

So what safeguards do we have that the Legislature or the Supreme Court for that matter are going to protect the rights of the people? Or is it a foregone conclusion that the guvmn't can and will do whatever it likes as long as it has the rubber stamps it made up on its own authorizing it to do so, and if "the people" don't like it they can go pound sand, or vote (like that really matters)?

BH

 

[Muzz]

Well, when the government fails you, and the courts fail you, and all else fails to keep your rights in tact, what do you do? What would our forefathers do?

 

[bootmud]

Well, when the government fails you, and the courts fail you, and all else fails to keep your rights in tact, what do you do? What would our forefathers do?

Our forefathers have already made their point which allows what freedoms what we have today (disappearing almost daily). The real question is... what will the American people of today and tomorrow do and when?

 

[jimsdad]

So our Supreme Court is refusing to validate the ability of law abiding citizen's to carry a concealed weapon. I wonder how this same group of penguins would address the rights of MS 13 or any of the KNOWN CRIMINAL GROUPS IN THIS COUNTRY to carry conceled, or any, weapons? When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

 

[Bluetick]

I am thinking they are looking for a case that is not limited in application of the decision. Not all SC decisions extend to all states.

This court, and more importantly the 5 conservative judges, knew they would be hearing this case when they passed Heller and then McDonald.

I see this refusal not as a avoidance issue, rather than an issue of the right case with the furthest reach issue.

There are several cases on the issue in line to the SC. McDonald opened the door, but it still didn't fully answer the CCW question universally / nationally. In that, and again, I think the court is looking for a case that will once and done resolve the issue.


It is easy for people to take the standard hyper line of the anti's, all government, and the deck is stacked. Once again, I admonish all to remember, this country is a nation of law - and the rule of law applies right along with the details and application of law and court decisions.

All of us will be better served by one decision on the issue than a repetitive piecemeal approach.

 

[Bumblehick]

It is easy for people to take the standard hyper line of the anti's, all government, and the deck is stacked. Once again, I admonish all to remember, this country is a nation of law - and the rule of law applies right along with the details and application of law and court decisions.

Bluetick- I think the "rule of law" has been adulterated and watered down so much over the past century that it's practically meaningless. I say that b/c the concept applies to the guvmn't itself obeying certain standards. Standards defined by who? Too many today think the concept means they set the laws and the citizens will suffer the burden of those laws and have no other choice. In that context it's no different than North Korea or Saudi Arabia, where the guvmn't sets the laws and they are legally binding b/c the guvmn't says so- and if you don't like it you can go pound sand.

I think the idea I just outlined is held up upon examination of the dealings with the 2A.

"Shall not be infringed"- it's a little hard to believe this provides anything resembling confusion to people who are supposedly lifelong career experts on reading and interpreting laws. The fact that this is such an open issue for them erodes all confidence in them.

Rather I see them working hand in hand with every other branch or interest of the guvmn't to try to not make any waves that might disrupt or undermine the authority of the guvmn't to do whatever it wants.

Example- Every decision the SC makes, they consider the consequences of the action- which includes inconveniences to the guvmn't that may be caused by their decision(s). What if the decision would cost the federal guvmn't 100 billion $$$? Require the guvmn't to lay off thousands of employees?

If the inconvenience to the guvmn't is too great, they'll either side with the guvmn't regardless of the Constitutionality, OR- to avoid that accusation they'll just keep their mouths shut and refuse to offer an opinion, OR- they'll work out a compromise, as in the Heller case, where they declared an individual right to keep/bear arms while simultaneously rubber-stamping the authority of the guvmn't (state, federal, whatever) to impose all kinds of restrictions and hurdles on that right.

Example- Assault Weapons bans and license requirements in states like NY and MD. These are all kosher under Heller, as would be a complete ban on handguns.

IMO it's no different than saying you have freedom of speech but you can only talk about what the guvmn't approves and then only if you pay fees and undergo background checks to "earn" that privilege. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure- seems odd given Obama recently signed that law allowing his office to arrest anyone and detain them indefinitely w/o charge based on "suspicion" of terrorism, and given the guvmn'ts charge that mere voicing of pro-2A sentiments puts you on the "suspicious" list.

Rule of law- yup, that's the law. Our job as citizens is to follow and accept the law, regardless of what we think about it. If you think your vote matters, go for it- but don't complain about the outcome, as it's all according to the rule of law.

Access to rulings by the SC on a specific case is next to impossible, and if you ever find yourself in the middle of it seeking a ruling it will come at the expense of a decade or more of your life and access to funds you don't have- doesn't cost the SC judges a penny or extra minute of their time though. So if anyone doesn't like it they can sit around for a few decades to see what the SC may or may not have to say about it.

I like the rule of law in the sense that there's a Bill of Rights that specify boundaries over which the guvmn't has no power. For the rule of law to stand requires the SC or other agency to be the guardian of the sanctity of the bill of rights. And this means adhering to absolutes, independent of popular whimsy. I don't see the SC showing any sort of adherence to anything except what's politically judicious and palatable at the time, which implies they have no concept of absolutes, in which case there is nothing mandating adherence to the Bill of Rights and therefore the entire concept of "rights" is arbitrary, relegated to the status of privilege- again, this is no different than N. Korea or Saudi Arabia, where they too can grant "privileges", require payment for those privileges, grant varying levels of privileges depending on who you work for, and take them away at their whim- which is exactly where we are in the USA with the 2A.

BH

 

[Bluetick]

You have a better system?

It is what we have and what we have to deal with.

Hate it, love or or accept it - it is what it is and it does affect our life. We can go round and around on this. Once finished, we remain where we are. With the system we have in place with all the plus's and negatives.

Reality. Fight it if one must, but in the end reality rules the day. Fighting the reality might feel good, might make one satisfied, but ultimately changes nothing.

It is for better or worse the system we have. The only change will happen if there is a political shift of massive magnitude, and only then by constitutional amendment.


But you know this.

 

[brokenfoot]

Yes I do have a better System the one that our Fonding Fathers gave us! Not the one we have now

 

[Bumblehick]

You have a better system?

It is what we have and what we have to deal with.

Hate it, love or or accept it - it is what it is and it does affect our life. We can go round and around on this. Once finished, we remain where we are. With the system we have in place with all the plus's and negatives.

This is what we have, I just don't see any reason to glorify it or paint it as something magical, just and cognizant of individual liberties when it is in fact nothing of the sort.

Let's stop pretending there is some uniquely American system in place where the good ideas percolate to the top and the checks and balances will wash everything else away. The experience we have from the past 50+ years is that the garbage floats to the top and dominates everything, more so every year, mainly b/c the system of checks/balances IMO no longer truly exists.

Given that, I think it's fruitless to talk about the rule of law when the #1 problem in America on all levels are the constantly shifting legal sands upon which nobody has a firm basis for anything.

Since the 1990s- Assault weapons ban (AWB), then no AWB, then a new proposed federal AWB, then maybe it will or will not be there, or take shape in a new unspecified form in the future, state X imposing its own AWB and neighboring state not doing the same, state A imposing licensing requirements, state B doesn't do it, but might. Supreme Court says you have an individual "right" but it's subject to no safeguards against the guvmnm't curbing your ability to exercise that "right" as they see fit- so how is it even a right at all? Magazine limits, in some states passed, others states not, some allow grandfathering, others do not, some may if they adopt it in the future, you never know. What is an "assault weapon"? 2 features, 1 feature, who knows? Not to be outdone by promises of federal efforts to the same. NICS checks then additional state checks, varying depending on what kind of firearm you are interested in with varying fees and requirements, Universal background checks, maybe or maybe not. Most of these laws have tiers of who has to actually abide by them, with "special" exceptions afforded to certain professions that just happen to be closely aligned w/the guvmn't. Imagine that. Registration? Not openly talked about but inevitable if they really want universal background checks. But all of them are saying there is no attempt at registration. Do you believe them? Especially given we know various state and municipal guvmn'ts keep registries in defiance of federal law now, the courts know this and have known this for decades- what have they done? Nothing. ATF requires maintenance of all gun sales, and considers it not a "registry" b/c it's not in an automated format, but all they need from Congress is a nod of approval and it will be there in a dB lickety split. But no no no, there's no chance of a national registry... or is there?

All of this confounded by a relentless stream of misinformation at all levels from the guvmn't. All of this influenced by guvmn't employee unions who owe their fiscal allegiance to various factions primarily working to curb gun ownership and at odds w/the Constitution. Then we have the guvmn't itself working actively to stimulate the dissemination of firearms in an illegal manner to inflate crime statistics so they can come back and say they need more anti-gun laws. Oh wait, they're the guvmn't so whatever they do is according to the law therefore it can't be illegal, so they'll just shake their heads b/c they got caught. And then we have the primary anti-terrorism LE agency in the USA actively declaring that anyone who opines in favor of 2A rights in opposition to the official "party line" is automatically a "potential terrorist" and the POTUS now has the legal authority to make them basically disappear a'la 1950 Soviet Poland.

What else are they doing now that we don't know about? Who knows? Do you trust them?

I don't trust them. Therefore I put little stock in the tomfoolery and ring-kissing they perform that they think somehow magically justifies their actions.

Reality. Fight it if one must, but in the end reality rules the day. Fighting the reality might feel good, might make one satisfied, but ultimately changes nothing.

BTW- there have been massive political shifts even within my living memory, all of them to the Left. These shifts have come about b/c the Leftist proponents of these changes never once gave up, never tired, and never stopped pushing. And there were never many members of the "hard core" and extremely radical leftist advocacy groups that wanted these changes, their sheer tenacity was what made it happen.

So I present to you another equally valid "reality".... we can't even have a shred of hope to influence the kind of change we want unless we have equally hard core, equally radical folks acting as the source of yeast to help ferment pro-liberty movements today and in the future that will steer this nation back on course.

How this change will come, I have no idea. I'm sure folks who wanted abolition of slavery in the colonies in the 1700s had no idea how that would come about either, but the ones that kept that light alive were considered dangerous and radical at the time too.

What I think we need to do is maintain the idealism of the "Revolution", and keep it ready for the next massive catastrophe that hits this continent. This will not be supported by the guvmn't or by the education system. It has to come from within the population of their own volition, independent of the guvmn't. This will require that there always be a "remnant" in the population that advocates anti-collectivist, anti-Leftist, pro-Libertarian ideals.

They must be educated and able to articulate their arguments, they will have to gain this ability on their own and possibly face persecution.

They may go through decades or even centuries of marginalization, but their ideas are required for re-birth of Liberty once the collectivist state collapses under its own weight, as it always does.

BH

 

[Bluetick]

So your calling for what exactly.

Look, I agree with most of your thought process.

In summation, liberalism is like the proverbial easy button. Smashing it results in goodies for everyone at the behest of the rest of ... us.

Wrong forum, wrong topic, but - everyone needs to make sure they contact their rep an senators and insist - push - and DEMAND Pennsylvania go to a proportional electoral college system. Somehow, it also need to be extended to the other federal offices as well.

Reason: look at the last election map state or federal. Basically a sea of red with a few blotches of blue. Those blue areas determine the lay of the land politically, and they are also heavily democratic and or liberal.

Going to a provisional system takes the political weight away from the cities and re-distributes it across the landscape. In effect re-enfrancising the rest of us and making a rural vote count as much as a urban, high population center vote. The urban voting region competes unto itself as each other region would. The winner is the person that attracts the most votes across the entire state, rather than certain population centers.

BTW - the Dem's say this is an attempt to steal the elections. But other states do it - it works and no one cries foul.


Back on topic, I again think the SC Justices are looking for a case with wider wings. With the numerous cases moving through the courts across the country, I am thinking they are waiting for one or two that they can rule on and set a nationwide precedent.

Remember, Heller was a win, but actually only applied to Washington, DC. Thus McDonald happened.

 

[brokenfoot]

How the yote is counted to repersent the Rural Aeras?How many people do you know right now that whole the same ideas as you but do'nt vote?I khow many that are complaining right now to me.So I try to convice them if want things to change and no vote you are letting other people in the citys that have all the power. We have to get the unvolved to become involved in the proess.I try to do that ever time someone starts complain to me do you vote, how come you don't. Don't let them try to give you some kind of excuse.

 

[Single Six]

You have a better system?

It is what we have and what we have to deal with.

Hate it, love or or accept it - it is what it is and it does affect our life. We can go round and around on this. Once finished, we remain where we are. With the system we have in place with all the plus's and negatives.

This is what we have, I just don't see any reason to glorify it or paint it as something magical, just and cognizant of individual liberties when it is in fact nothing of the sort.

Let's stop pretending there is some uniquely American system in place where the good ideas percolate to the top and the checks and balances will wash everything else away. The experience we have from the past 50+ years is that the garbage floats to the top and dominates everything, more so every year, mainly b/c the system of checks/balances IMO no longer truly exists.

Given that, I think it's fruitless to talk about the rule of law when the #1 problem in America on all levels are the constantly shifting legal sands upon which nobody has a firm basis for anything.

Since the 1990s- Assault weapons ban (AWB), then no AWB, then a new proposed federal AWB, then maybe it will or will not be there, or take shape in a new unspecified form in the future, state X imposing its own AWB and neighboring state not doing the same, state A imposing licensing requirements, state B doesn't do it, but might. Supreme Court says you have an individual "right" but it's subject to no safeguards against the guvmnm't curbing your ability to exercise that "right" as they see fit- so how is it even a right at all? Magazine limits, in some states passed, others states not, some allow grandfathering, others do not, some may if they adopt it in the future, you never know. What is an "assault weapon"? 2 features, 1 feature, who knows? Not to be outdone by promises of federal efforts to the same. NICS checks then additional state checks, varying depending on what kind of firearm you are interested in with varying fees and requirements, Universal background checks, maybe or maybe not. Most of these laws have tiers of who has to actually abide by them, with "special" exceptions afforded to certain professions that just happen to be closely aligned w/the guvmn't. Imagine that. Registration? Not openly talked about but inevitable if they really want universal background checks. But all of them are saying there is no attempt at registration. Do you believe them? Especially given we know various state and municipal guvmn'ts keep registries in defiance of federal law now, the courts know this and have known this for decades- what have they done? Nothing. ATF requires maintenance of all gun sales, and considers it not a "registry" b/c it's not in an automated format, but all they need from Congress is a nod of approval and it will be there in a dB lickety split. But no no no, there's no chance of a national registry... or is there?

BH

All perceived 'rights' are just ink on a piece of paper. To the degree that your lobbyists and representatives can 'temporarily' grant you those rights under current law is the best you're going to do. When being a 'Constitutionalist' is tantamount to 'terrorism' these days you can see where we're headed. I have no doubt that the generation being born today will enjoy 'rights' (or lack of) much different than we have today. As long as your representatives perceive the Second Amendment as being worthy of granting you a right under law and under an ever increasing fascist police state, you will enjoy your own perceived 'right'.