So - possible supreme court case on concealed carry

[RTFM]

News is saying there is ambiguity in the Colorado area circuit court saying the 2nd amendment DOES NOT cover concealed carry but only the right to own guns.

The Chicago circuit court (I know... go figure) has ruled that the bare of keep and bare arms are two separate and distinct items and it would have been foolish to place the wording as such if the originators had not intended for The People to have arms on their person OUTSIDE the home.

So now they are trying to push the supreme court to take the case and make an official rule - Does the 2nd Amendment allow the right for concealed carry or just the right to keep and bear arms with in one own dwelling.


Rat bastards....

Rope
Tree
Politician

Assembly required.

[JC5123]

The framers used simple language in the Bill of Rights. This was so there would be NO confusion. What we are seeing here is the result of LAWYERS that failed at practicing law, so they became politicians and appointed judges through cronyism.

[Solus]

Well, perhaps the 1st Amendment means you can write or print what you want, you just can't say it out loud or distribute copies...

Makes as much sense.

[Solus]

Additionally, "only within their homes" would be discriminatory against the homeless.

Only home owners can own guns...

Maybe that would work for who can vote.

[TAB]

i am afraid of them hearing the case.  Look at health care, we may get something out of left field again.

[Sponsor]

[1Buckshot]

So Tab, just don't do anything because you are afraid something bad will happen. Well you can be afraid all by yourself. I would rather see the fight continue and lose a few rather than sit back and feel safe. Just my opinion!

[TAB]

remember heller was a 5-4 deal.  It could have gone the other way.   its not about fighting or playing it safe.   the SC is a wild card and could do just about anything.   I don't like to gamble with my rights.

[mooner]

Here is an analysis of the ruling from The Blaze

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/federal-court-finds-no-constitutional-right-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-we-explain-the-decision/

Basically, they are predicting an appeal.  Even the court in which this was heard was apparently surprised that they did not address open carry with this ruling.  Going after both open carry and concealed carry would probably forced the court to side with one side or the other - similar to what happened in Illinois.  Seems like a badly devised case to me.

[fightingquaker13]

The framers used simple language in the Bill of Rights. This was so there would be NO confusion. What we are seeing here is the result of LAWYERS that failed at practicing law, so they became politicians and appointed judges through cronyism.

Actually, that is far from true. The BOR is clearer than most of the rest of the ducument, but some parts were left deliberately vaque. Like what makes a punishment cruel or unusual? What is an exccessive fine or bail?

If we look back at history, assuming the Court relies on past laws, this is a tough case. For a large period of our history open carry was permitted and concealed carry wasn't, as it was seen as sneaky and dishonorable. A gentleman carried openly, a thief concealed. There are all sorts of ways the Court could go. Leaving it to the states as it is now, saying it isn't protected, or, if we're lucky nationalizing it. But since CCW has always fallen under the police powers granted to the several states and the the most conservative justices are strongly in favor of states rights, I am nervous about this one. We know where the libs are going, but the conservatives might well have to choose between federalism and the 2A and I don't like where I think that call will be made.

[JC5123]

Actually, that is far from true. The BOR is clearer than most of the rest of the ducument, but some parts were left deliberately vaque. Like what makes a punishment cruel or unusual? What is an exccessive fine or bail?

If we look back at history, assuming the Court relies on past laws, this is a tough case. For a large period of our history open carry was permitted and concealed carry wasn't, as it was seen as sneaky and dishonorable. A gentleman carried openly, a thief concealed. There are all sorts of ways the Court could go. Leaving it to the states as it is now, saying it isn't protected, or, if we're lucky nationalizing it. But since CCW has always fallen under the police powers granted to the several states and the the most conservative justices are strongly in favor of states rights, I am nervous about this one. We know where the libs are going, but the conservatives might well have to choose between federalism and the 2A and I don't like where I think that call will be made.

I'm sorry professor, I guess I misunderstood how vague and ambiguous "Shall NOT be Infringed" is. Then again the Constitution was written by, and for moral men, not academics, and lawyers. As far as I'm concerned, EVERY gun control law in this country is a gross violation of the second amendment. We need to not only stop all gun control debate in this country, but work to repeal everything on the books.