Coming to a head?

[deadeye]

Just heard on the news that because Colorado's district court and New York's can't agree on CCW that it is probably headed to the Supreme Court. Should decide it for once and all. They also said 44 armament companies will not sell anything to California, Colorado or New York City that private citizens can't own. Expect more to do the same by this weekend. California officers went to Arizona and shops there refused to sell to them. Getting interesting!!
Wonder if the broadcast news, ABC, NBC and CBS (White House Press Core) will cover any of this?

[JohnR]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Um, really? :rolleyes:

“In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections,” the judges ruled.

Ah. So because everyone does it, it's ok. The Constitution really is dead.

[chrish]

It should be a fun one to watch. Since, at least for now, SCOTUS has ruled (Chicago and DC) that a person's right to protect themselves extends outside the home. If they hold to that, and that's a BIG IF, then states are gonna have to put up or shut up. Either allow open carry, or come up w/ a CCW provision that works. Of course, places like IL, NY, CA, and others like them will continue to make it as expensive and painful as possible. SCOTUS will not touch cost, training, etc. In places where they require it you may still have to jump thru hoops like a circus act to get one.

I agree John, dunno where they get that from either. There is no 'extensive' practice other than in the commie areas. If they want to talk what's more and more common across America, it's getting rid of 'may issue' in place of 'shall issue' and beginning to allow 'open carry'. Nowhere in recent years (that I'm aware of) has it gone the other way.

In the end, I think we loose this fight years or decades from now. But I'm hoping I'm dead and gone by the time that happens. It's going to get to the point where the molon labe crowd are going to have to say that with regard to carry as well. I.E., I'm gonna carry in spite of your stupid laws and if you want my firearm, frisk me and take it.

I'd really really really like to see what the powers that be would do in downtown Chicago, DC, NYC, etc if a million CCW holders showed up with signs indicating they were carrying. Where ya' gonna put 'em all ya' jackasses???

[chrish]

Great detailed explanation here, good read.

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

[ltxi]

Great detailed explanation here, good read.

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

Not that good. Colorado and Florida have reciprocity. If you want CO to recognize WA permits then get them to recognize ours. No problem.

[chrish]

Not that good. Colorado and Florida have reciprocity. If you want CO to recognize WA permits then get them to recognize ours. No problem.

Actually, that's incorrect. Colorado does NOT recognize non-resident permits from anywhere, so Florida is not at play in this case. The guy was from WA. He had a non-resident FL permit. Unless CO allows open carry, he is being denied his 2A rights in CO.

One more example of judges being wrong. You can live in WA and travel to CO and exercise your 1A rights. As a WA resident you are free to travel in CO w/o fear of being illegally searched. You don't have to testify against yourself in CO if you come from WA.

Why is your 2A right up for debate here? Allow open carry or allow him to apply in CO for a non-resident permit. Period.

[tv_racin_fan]

Not that good. Colorado and Florida have reciprocity. If you want CO to recognize WA permits then get them to recognize ours. No problem.

No problem?

UUMM is your state currently a may issue or shall issue state? If it is shall issue and Washington is a MAY issue state are you willing to give up the liberty you have in order to have Washington reciprocate? Does your state require a class and passage of a test in order to get that permit or does Washington and are you willing to have your state change it's "rules" to comply with those of the other state?

Sure, no problem, we will just give up some more of our liberties...

IF they finally rule that carry is not a right protected by the second are you willing to give up your permit and no longer carry? You do understand that these are the issues that may come up.. I hope.

And here I thought Constitutional Carry meant that I need no permit to carry however I wish. Guess I might better rethink my support of Constitutional Carry laws.

[tv_racin_fan]

Actually, that's incorrect. Colorado does NOT recognize non-resident permits from anywhere, so Florida is not at play in this case. The guy was from WA. He had a non-resident FL permit. Unless CO allows open carry, he is being denied his 2A rights in CO.

One more example of judges being wrong. You can live in WA and travel to CO and exercise your 1A rights. As a WA resident you are free to travel in CO w/o fear of being illegally searched. You don't have to testify against yourself in CO if you come from WA.

Why is your 2A right up for debate here? Allow open carry or allow him to apply in CO for a non-resident permit. Period.

No no no.. Adopt Constitutional Carry as the law of the nation and then one is free to carry however they wish in each and every state of the union.

Is one required to obtain a permit to exercise his "right" to free speech? If not then why is it that I must obtain a permit to exercize my "right" to bear arms?

[chrish]

No no no.. Adopt Constitutional Carry as the law of the nation and then one is free to carry however they wish in each and every state of the union.

Is one required to obtain a permit to exercise his "right" to free speech? If not then why is it that I must obtain a permit to exercize my "right" to bear arms?

Well, that goes without saying I thought...

All gun regulation is unconstitutional. It only exists because we have allowed it. But I agree completely. Nationally recognized constitutional carry is how it should be. I was just speaking to the current environment of issuing carry permits. If that's how it's gonna be, then a state needs to either A) recognize all other states permits just like drivers licenses and marriage licenses or B) if they aren't happy w/ the other states' permit requirements then implement their own for non-residents.

[downtownv]

recognize all other states permits just like drivers licenses and marriage licenses or B) if they aren't happy w/ the other states' permit requirements then implement their own for non-residents.

There's the point if these licenses are recognized then why not CCL's?

[chrish]

There's the point if these licenses are recognized then why not CCL's?

Well, yes, I made that point...but don't use that in an argument w/ a gun-controller. They will rip that apart. Marriage licenses are fairly innocuous and there really isn't any need for 'training' or a 'background check'. I guess you could find some situations that maybe both of those would be a good idea before getting married (haha). Cars, same thing, they'll argue that well, your car is registered. I concede they are not the same thing. States don't blanket license teachers, doctors, lawyers across state lines. So they'll argue that point too. My point is just that IF they are going to stick w/ requiring a stupid license for me to carry what I already legally own (and was freakin checked for already) then they need to figure out a way for me to be legal everywhere. That's all. A lawyer or doctor can gain the ability to operate in a state that is not his own, but meeting whatever requirement of a non-resident state. CCW should at a MINIMUM be the same way. If I can meet the same requirements as its residents, a state should grant me a CCW.

Complete freedom in this regard (Const Carry) is the pie in the sky that'll probably never happen, but I agree that's what would adhere to the 2A, all other options are a violation. Regardless of what the courts and politicians and laws state. It just comes down to how 'cowboy' are you with regard to doing what they require in that regard.

[downtownv]

Government = Control! From feds to state to county to towns. It's about the ability to show you who's in charge......

[muggsy]

The second amendment protects your right to carry concealed. Whether or not the Supreme Court sees it that way is anyone's guess. They may decide that concealed carry is a states right issue.

[ltxi]

The second amendment protects your right to carry concealed. Whether or not the Supreme Court sees it that way is anyone's guess. They may decide that concealed carry is a states right issue.

No, it doesn't.

[AJBert]

I am by no means a Constitional scholar, but IMHO this guy really chose the wrong avenue by challenging the 2nd Amendment as his right to carry in another state. WA does not honor CO, CO does not honor WA. Again, IMHO, he should have tried this at a state level and not at the federal level.

We all know that STATES issue CCW, not the Feds. Right or wrong, that is the way it is and has been for a number of years. I feel he may have caused more harm to our current 2A rights more than anything else. Best thing that could have come out of this, rather than getting the feds involved, is for ALL of the states to come together and agree on honoring each other. Kind of a governors get together and let them, along with the AG's, hash things out.

I know, pie in the sky.