Free states feel the heat

[ladder13]

Even states like Wyoming, the freest of the free, see the oncoming threats to our 2nd A rights.

19 states join legal fight against New Jersey's concealed weapons law | Fox News

 

[coltle6920]

Isn't this an individual State's right to decide on? I know that numerous States are "shall issue".I remember where I lived growing up in Pa. you needed a reason like carrying a payroll.

Not arguing...Just don't see the issue here.Will reread the article.

 

[b_san]

No it's not a "state's rights" issue in my opinion. "May issue" leaves ones inalienable right to self defense up to an arbitrary decision of some faceless county official who may or may not be having a bad day when your application passes their desk. Thus the burden is on the law abiding citizen to prove they have a need to carry and/or are politically connected enough to get that approval. "Shall issue" defines a set of legal tests for denial and anyone who doesn't fail these tests is automatically approved. This puts the burden on the state which is where it should be.

In my opinion, carry shouldn't require a permit in the 1st place as if you are legal to possess you should be legal to carry, but I digress.

 

[b_san]

And now for some good news! Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules California Must Allow Law-Abiding Citizens To Carry Concealed Guns In Public « Pat Dollard

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state's permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution's Second Amendment by requiring residents to show "good cause" – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

I'm sure it will get appealed but for now another gun grabber domino falls.

 

[smitholdtimer]

You know what stumps me?

This ruling came from a three judge court with the voting 2-1 in favor, saying it was against the Constitution, where is the non agreeing judge from? The Constitution was in print before this Judge was born and the oath the judge takes (they are required to take an oath, right?) should require the support of the Constitution without fail! It just baffles me to no end, should have been unanimous! I am gratified by the fact that two of the judges are in their "right" minds!

 

[jtpur]

Judges

This ruling came from a three judge court with the voting 2-1 in favor, saying it was against the Constitution, where is the non agreeing judge from? The Constitution was in print before this Judge was born and the oath the judge takes (they are required to take an oath, right?) should require the support of the Constitution without fail! It just baffles me to no end, should have been unanimous! I am gratified by the fact that two of the judges are in their "right" minds!

While you may believe as I do that this ruling should be a no brainier 3-0 ruling one judge did rule in favor of the State.

Since our side won we can celebrate for the short term. However the big test will come when the SCOTUS rules since a dully constituted Federal Court came to the exact opposite conclusion in NJ. I can only hope SCOTUS will rule favorably, but if it does it will be 5-4 . The real test is what will you and I do if the ruling is 5-4 against or worse 9-0 against.

Each of us had better be prepared to provide a response when the ruling goes south. Is the law what a judge says it is or is it what you and I may believe. Only time, the courts and our voices will tell.

 

[smitholdtimer]

jtpur

I know you are correct and I should be happy for small victories, actually I am. The problem remains that we, as US Citizens, should not have to continually beg our Elected and Appointed Officials to confirm the rights Our Constitution has always guaranteed. I'll shut up and apologize to the original poster for hijacking his thread! Sorry Mike!

 

[CDROBERTS]

Is the law what a judge says it is or is it what you and I may believe.

I'll answer that.

The law is what the Judge says it is.

"Free State" has become an illusion.

They've made a mockery of the United States Constitution.

 

[S&W45Colt]

This ruling came from a three judge court with the voting 2-1 in favor, saying it was against the Constitution, where is the non agreeing judge from? The Constitution was in print before this Judge was born and the oath the judge takes (they are required to take an oath, right?) should require the support of the Constitution without fail! It just baffles me to no end, should have been unanimous! I am gratified by the fact that two of the judges are in their "right" minds!

The dissenting judge is a Clinton "appointee"...what do expect?

 

[coltle6920]

States make their own laws as far as "shall" or "may" issue.California is a "may issue " State and except for the more Liberal areas of the State most permits are issued.With the exception of the more obvious reasons the majority of States allow open carry.There are also local "home rules" that supercede the State law in some cities.

We should continue to be concerned with the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to freely owning our firearms without fear of confiscation.I don't see the words "concealed carry" in my copy of The Constitution and wont argue with those that feel it's implied.

With regards to the OP's original post it is still up to the individual States to decide how concealed carry permits are handled and with the majority of States labeled as "shall issue" I don't see a real or even imagined threat to the rest of the Country.

 

[NJDevil72]

It's times like this that I am ashamed of the state I was born and raised in. The good news is that I think the 9th Circuit ruling in California today may help thge case in New Jersey. Specifically this quote from the Washington Post online article ( Ninth Circuit strikes California?s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns) explains how it may affect New Jersey's law, "The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O'Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the "good cause" provision violates the Second Amendment."

Let us hope reason prevails.

 

[sw1834]

States make their own laws as far as "shall" or "may" issue.California is a "may issue " State and except for the more Liberal areas of the State most permits are issued.With the exception of the more obvious reasons the majority of States allow open carry.There are also local "home rules" that supercede the State law in some cities.

We should continue to be concerned with the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to freely owning our firearms without fear of confiscation.I don't see the words "concealed carry" in my copy of The Constitution and wont argue with those that feel it's implied.

With regards to the OP's original post it is still up to the individual States to decide how concealed carry permits are handled and with the majority of States labeled as "shall issue" I don't see a real or even imagined threat to the rest of the Country.

I don't know where this map comes from, but Wyoming is now one of only a few states where concealed carry is allowed without a permit. I would consider Wyoming Unrestricted also.

SWCA #1834

 

[S&W45Colt]

States make their own laws as far as "shall" or "may" issue.California is a "may issue " State and except for the more Liberal areas of the State most permits are issued.With the exception of the more obvious reasons the majority of States allow open carry.There are also local "home rules" that supercede the State law in some cities.

We should continue to be concerned with the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to freely owning our firearms without fear of confiscation.I don't see the words "concealed carry" in my copy of The Constitution and wont argue with those that feel it's implied.

With regards to the OP's original post it is still up to the individual States to decide how concealed carry permits are handled and with the majority of States labeled as "shall issue" I don't see a real or even imagined threat to the rest of the Country.

The "shall not be infringed part" appears to have confused you. No place in that does it allow for States to limit carry. The 10th Amendment states that areas of law not covered under the Constitution are left to States purvey. The 2nd Amendment clearly speaks to gun law. So, no, states cannot limit your carry legally, though they have been illegally doing it for years now.

 

[coltle6920]

The "shall not be infringed part" appears to have confused you.

I am by no means any more confused by that part of the 2nd Amendment than I am by what my perceived interpretation of "to keep and bear arms" is.I interpret it to mean I can own and take up arms in my defense of life and personal property.

No place in that does it allow for States to limit carry. The 10th Amendment states that areas of law not covered under the Constitution are left to States purvey.

My definition of "to bear arms" is to openly carry them without fear of reprisal.You contradict yourself in those two sentences.While States allow open carry there are limitations on where and laws have been passed without an uproar.Concealed carry is not specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment and States have decided to enact their own laws regarding it.Your interpretation (or mine) of any law is of little consequence when we choose to either abide by it or not.

The 2nd Amendment clearly speaks to gun law. So, no, states cannot limit your carry legally, though they have been illegally doing it for years now.

The 2nd Amendment speaks of individual gun rights and not gun laws.While you have that right to "keep and bear arms" the rest of the people have a right to be protected from you given that no one knows what your intentions may be.That is why States have their own laws that say where you can carry whether it is open or concealed.

I agree that if you can legally own a gun based on Federal law it shouldn't matter whether you open carry or conceal it but States have their own laws and if we don't like it it's up to us to either replace the people that make the laws or move somewhere else.

You have your opinion and I have mine...both of which are arguable but I'm done with this thread.No sense in beating a dead horse.

 

[b_san]

While you have that right to "keep and bear arms" the rest of the people have a right to be protected from you given that no one knows what your intentions may be.

Now you're getting into prior restraint and are in effect using the same arguments that the gun grabbers use. The pressumption of law should be that a law abiding citizen will remain law abiding no matter what legal item he possesses. Additionally I'd like to know how it in anyway affects you if someone around you is concealing a weapon whether with a permit or not? Unless they at some point intend to or do use that weapon in an illegal way then that is the action which should be punished not the original possession or concealing. I'd also submit that anyone intending to use a concealed weapon illegally doesn't care if they are legally allowed to carry or not.

That is why States have their own laws that say where you can carry whether it is open or concealed.

But we do have a right to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. In my (IANAL) opinion, "may issue" clearly violates that standard due to the capriciousness of the application of the permitting process.

 

[jtpur]

Free state

I'll answer that.

The law is what the Judge says it is.

"Free State" has become an illusion.

They've made a mockery of the United States Constitution.

So then I assume you are ready to abrogate your freedom to the will of the State? or are you merely stating the situation as you believe it to be? If the later I must ask what are you willing to do to reclaim the freedoms endowed by your creator?

 

[the ringo kid]

Even states like Wyoming, the freest of the free, see the oncoming threats to our 2nd A rights.

19 states join legal fight against New Jersey's concealed weapons law | Fox News

Im offended that Texas didnt join that effort.

 

[ladder13]

Im offended that Texas didnt join that effort.

Not a problem, I think California of all states, just poured a bucket of ice on the gun grabbers

 

[CDROBERTS]

So then I assume you are ready to abrogate your freedom to the will of the State? or are you merely stating the situation as you believe it to be? If the later I must ask what are you willing to do to reclaim the freedoms endowed by your creator?

Answer to your first question is No.

Answer to second question is Yes.

Answer the third question is, I need do nothing to reclaim any freedoms endowed to me by God, as I have not LOST any.

 

[ladder13]

This ruling came from a three judge court with the voting 2-1 in favor, saying it was against the Constitution, where is the non agreeing judge from? The Constitution was in print before this Judge was born and the oath the judge takes (they are required to take an oath, right?) should require the support of the Constitution without fail! It just baffles me to no end, should have been unanimous! I am gratified by the fact that two of the judges are in their "right" minds!

Interestingly, the dissenting judge was born in Montana and the majority judges were born in NY and Ca respectively.

The results are quite the opposite of what I would expect, but it just goes to show what can happen if people actually read and follow the Constitution.