Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #110215  by pick_six
 
Yesterday it was also announced that the right affirmed by the 2nd amendment became a 2nd tier privilege, infringable by any state that wants to.

Scotus will not take the Peruta v San Diego case

Not linking article, it's pretty much on most gun web sites.
Last edited by pick_six on Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #110216  by Owen
 
Yeah, that was disappointing.

Good news was that the new supreme Gorsuch went along with Thomas in his dissent! Baby steps I know but progress just the same.

I could see them eventually put into effect that every state has to chose to regulate concealed or open but not both. Better yet just revert to the original intent and make it constitutional carry for all.

From the dissent that starts on page 30 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_8759.pdf) :
This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive
or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting);
alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
The most natural reading of this definition encompasses
public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen.
 #110218  by pick_six
 
re: gorsuch, it's a yeah, BUT... we merely replace like for like, as concerns 2a ideas, from scalia to gorsuch.

the best thing here is that it wasn't a hitlery/obama choice. like garland. if it was, this case would have been heard, and a great flushing sound would have ushered the 2nd right into septic tank.

i'm hoping that tRump gets another slot, and more hopeful it's ginsburg or kennedy.
Owen wrote:Yeah, that was disappointing.

Good news was that the new supreme Gorsuch went along with Thomas in his dissent! Baby steps I know but progress just the same.

I could see them eventually put into effect that every state has to chose to regulate concealed or open but not both. Better yet just revert to the original intent and make it constitutional carry for all.

From the dissent that starts on page 30 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_8759.pdf) :
This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive
or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting);
alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
The most natural reading of this definition encompasses
public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen.
 #110219  by Owen
 
pick_six wrote:re: gorsuch, it's a yeah, BUT... we merely replace like for like, as concerns 2a ideas, from scalia to gorsuch.

the best thing here is that it wasn't a hitlery/obama choice. like garland. if it was, this case would have been heard, and a great flushing sound would have ushered the 2nd right into septic tank.

i'm hoping that tRump gets another slot, and more hopeful it's ginsburg or kennedy.
I agree Gorsuch just keeps the status quo. Replacing another with a solid Pro 2A is my hope as well.

If Pantsuit would have one we'd be talking about tragic boating accidents and where we could assemble to practice "quilting".