Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: SCOTUS Needs to Reaffirm RKBA Extends Outside of Home

  1. #1
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    SCOTUS Needs to Reaffirm RKBA Extends Outside of Home

    I feel we're at a stalemate. To date there are 5 Constitutional Carry states, 37 Shall Issue, and 8 May Issue States. I contend we will not see any reduction of the "8 May Issue" counts until there is a ruling from SCOTUS. The one potential exception I foresee is the recent ruling of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A1D03D20140214 The US 9th Circuit Court decision may reduce that count by one.

    However, the count will remain unchanged due to conflicting ruling by the US Circuit Courts, effectively upholding the "good cause / justifiable need" requirement. The SCOUTS needs to rule that
    1. The right to bear arms extends beyond the home.
    2. There is no need for "good cause" needed to exercise the right.

    Emily Miller articulated this in an article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rake/?page=all

    Thoughts? If you disagree that the SCOTUS should be meddling in the decisions, how do you propose the law abiding citizens of those states restore their God given right?
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Get enough citizens to think the way we do and then they will elect like minded citizens to the legislatures and governor's mansion. Then the stupid laws will be repealed and the only "law" remaining regarding guns is the 2A.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Get enough citizens to think the way we do and then they will elect like minded citizens to the legislatures and governor's mansion. Then the stupid laws will be repealed and the only "law" remaining regarding guns is the 2A.
    Well said. +1

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Get a smaller percentage of citizens who will take a stand and let the powers to be they will actively take a stand and things will better.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I hear this "no progress" or "stalemate" argument frequently and I think it either bogus or impatient depending on the context. The pro-2A citizens have made massive progress in 25 years. The shall issue states are HI, CA and much of the NE, or as often known, "the usual suspects". The maps on this page really bring the progress into perspective:
    http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

  6. #6
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    I hear this "no progress" or "stalemate" argument frequently and I think it either bogus or impatient depending on the context. The pro-2A citizens have made massive progress in 25 years. The shall issue states are HI, CA and much of the NE, or as often known, "the usual suspects". The maps on this page really bring the progress into perspective:
    http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
    Well allow me to provide you with the appropriate context. I am not challenging the overall process of open carry and permit carry in the last 25 years; the progress is obvious. Rather, I am contending the high courts governing the last 8 may-issue states and Washington DC have ruled either in favor of the "justifiable need" requirement or have ruled that the second amendment does not extend outside the home, and given the rulings we will not see a change in the 8 may-issue states until the rulings are abolished. The Petition for writ of certiorari discusses the conflict in rulings between the various high courts throughout the US:

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake v. Jerejian Petition for a writ of certiorari,
    The Second,Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the supremecourts of Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Georgia haveheld or assumed that the Second Amendment encompasses the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. But along with the highest courts of Massachusetts, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, which have refused to recognize this right, a divided Third Circuit panel below held that carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection.
    The cards have already been played in the US Circuit and state supreme courts, and the judges refuse to recognize the 2A right. The only alternative would be to valiantly follow suit with Colorado, and eject gun-grabbers from office to change the laws.

    So let me ask a follow up question: Do you really think NY, Maryland, New Jersey are going to eject their liberal gun-grabbers? I'd wager that's more than a fat chance. That's about the same chance as our current Virginia Governor getting gun-control legislation passed here- God bless the Old Dominion
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    I don't know why some people think gun issues - such as universal concealed carry reciprocity - is a states issue rather than federal, since it is the national Constitution that deals with the right to keep and bear arms. It SHOULD be federal. That way, OC would be legal nationwide. That way, you could CC from state to state and not have different rules everywhere, or have some states that you can't even CC even though your own state gave you a permit.

    With the 2nd Amendment, that makes it a federal government issue IMO, not a states rights issue. We've gotten to where we are now by leaving it up to the states.

  8. #8
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    I don't know why some people think gun issues - such as universal concealed carry reciprocity - is a states issue rather than federal, since it is the national Constitution that deals with the right to keep and bear arms. It SHOULD be federal. That way, OC would be legal nationwide. That way, you could CC from state to state and not have different rules everywhere, or have some states that you can't even CC even though your own state gave you a permit.

    With the 2nd Amendment, that makes it a federal government issue IMO, not a states rights issue. We've gotten to where we are now by leaving it up to the states.
    That's a risky suggestion to roll the dice on. If left to the federal government what's to keep them from tacking a nationwide "good and sufficient reason" clause to the right? Plenty of states have done this, and it has effectively disarmed citizens outside their homes.

    I am a proponent for a National Right to Carry Reciprocity bill because it affirms the right to carry across state lines without relinquishing control of the carry regulations for each state to the federal government.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    OMG! Really? You mean SCOTUS can't grasp this very simple concept???

    Dear SCOTUS:

    I'd post my thoughts here, but I no longer have any assurance this sight is legit.

    Sorry. Your fault (for failing to response to my legitimate queries).

    Not mine.

    In the meantime, Americans, please get reacquainted with your Founding Fathers.
    Last edited by since9; 03-21-2014 at 07:44 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    That's a risky suggestion to roll the dice on. If left to the federal government what's to keep them from tacking a nationwide "good and sufficient reason" clause to the right? Plenty of states have done this, and it has effectively disarmed citizens outside their homes.
    Similarly, what's to keep other states from doing the same now? What would (hopefully) keep them from doing so is the recent court cases showing such clauses are a violation. That's why CA may soon become a shall-issue state. But why is this a states issue in the first place? Again, the 2A is federal. So shouldn't that mean all gun and carry laws should be a federal function, not a states function?

  11. #11
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Similarly, what's to keep other states from doing the same now? What would (hopefully) keep them from doing so is the recent court cases showing such clauses are a violation. That's why CA may soon become a shall-issue state. But why is this a states issue in the first place? Again, the 2A is federal. So shouldn't that mean all gun and carry laws should be a federal function, not a states function?
    Nothing is currently keeping states and some US Circuit Courts from ruling a "good cause / justifiable need" requirement is legal. Some have upheld this unconstitutional requirement, such as New Jersey. And I agree it is a right at the federal level. But you're failing to see the implication if it were ruled solely on a Federal level. For instance: If SCOTUS ruled a "good cause" was constitutional (or worse), think how that would cripple the right for even the most pro-2A states?

    Conversely, I would like to see the specific case of Drake v. Jerejian be ruled in the current SCOTUS given the prior track records of: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) I would expect there to be a 5-4 ruling that: (1) Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

    However, if there is a change of justices under the current administration I would fear for the preservation of the second amendment in the federal courts. That is why affirming the right to carry with Drake v. Jereijan in the near future is critical.

    Many members on these forums have voiced the RKBA should be handled on a state level, and I largely agree, but with the exception of this case. I perceive it may be because I'm in the metro DC area (thankfully Virginia side), but until there is some intervention from higher courts, I will never see my rights reinstated. For many members who live in areas away from the gun grabbing east coast and Cali may not feel the effect first hand of their right to carry being stripped and thus be more inclined to concur the states alone should preserve the right.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Similarly, what's to keep other states from doing the same now? What would (hopefully) keep them from doing so is the recent court cases showing such clauses are a violation. That's why CA may soon become a shall-issue state. But why is this a states issue in the first place? Again, the 2A is federal. So shouldn't that mean all gun and carry laws should be a federal function, not a states function?
    The 2A is part of the federal constitution but, the 2A is a PROHIBITION on the federal government. It is strictly forbidden from regulating the right to keep and bear. Therefore, there can be no federal laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

  13. #13
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    The 2A is part of the federal constitution but, the 2A is a PROHIBITION on the federal government. It is strictly forbidden from regulating the right to keep and bear. Therefore, there can be no federal laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.
    This looks like a federal law to me: 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  14. #14
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Also I wanted to share this link: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ke-v-jerejian/

    It's a good page for tracking Drake v. Jerejian
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    This looks like a federal law to me: 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)
    So wouldn't it be null and void if its unconstitutional?

    The Feds make all kind of illegal laws that doesn't make them right.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    So wouldn't it be null and void if its unconstitutional?

    The Feds make all kind of illegal laws that doesn't make them right.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990


    You won't hear me argue against it needing to be repealed. In fact, Ron Paul attempted to repeal the GFSZA awhile back with H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2613
    Last edited by cirrusly; 03-23-2014 at 03:18 PM. Reason: Typo
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990


    You won't hear me argue against it needing to be repealed. In fact, Ron Paul attempted to repeal the GFSZA awhile back with H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2613
    The framers didn't mean it's up to government to make the laws null and void. Government rarely does especially when they have decided to have a court system that isn't independent of them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The framers didn't mean it's up to government to make the laws null and void. Government rarely does especially when they have decided to have a court system that isn't independent of them.
    I don't disagree. Rather I'm illustrating the current workings of the federal legislation. Ideally congressional legislators shouldn't be needed to repeal GFSZ laws. The laws shouldn't have been made or upheld to begin with, but the reality is they were. So I will support every legislative effort to overturn them.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    I don't disagree. Rather I'm illustrating the current workings of the federal legislation. Ideally congressional legislators shouldn't be needed to repeal GFSZ laws. The laws shouldn't have been made or upheld to begin with, but the reality is they were. So I will support every legislative effort to overturn them.
    I also support those who ignore unconstitutional laws....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I also support those who ignore unconstitutional laws....
    Can't say I agree with ignoring laws, even if they are unconstitutional. That just wouldn't end well.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    RKBA.....should it not be AWRM, BNTTSOAFS, TROTPTKABA, SNBI.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Can't figure those out! lol

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    Can't say I agree with ignoring laws, even if they are unconstitutional. That just wouldn't end well.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Then the laws will never change. Non support gives the illusion of support. I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering and on the unlikely event I'd ever be a juror I would exercise my right to effectively nullify those brought up on charges against unconstitutional laws or those that don't fit in with natural law or the theories of justice or met the guidelines for a crime being committed under common law.

    Move out and draw fire! People like Rosa Parks are my heroes and they will get my support.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Then the laws will never change. Non support gives the illusion of support. I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering and on the unlikely event I'd ever be a juror I would exercise my right to effectively nullify those brought up on charges against unconstitutional laws or those that don't fit in with natural law or the theories of justice or met the guidelines for a crime being committed under common law.

    Move out and draw fire! People like Rosa Parks are my heroes and they will get my support.
    Quote Originally Posted by OCDO Forum Rules
    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    You're in violation of forum rules. You are encouraging Connecticut gun owners to not register their firearms: "I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering." That is advocating "illegal acts." Regardless of your personal opinion about the law.

    Breaking the law is not the correct approach, and is not welcomed here.
    Last edited by cirrusly; 03-28-2014 at 12:59 PM. Reason: Typo
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    You're in violation of forum rules. You are encouraging Connecticut gun owners to not register their firearms: "I stand behind the Connecticut gun owners not registering." That is advocating "illegal acts." Regardless of your personal opinion about the law.

    Breaking the law is not the correct approach, and is not welcomed here.
    Bullsh!t. Personal agreement or support of their independent actions does not equate to active encouragement or advocation on this forum for others to do the same.
    Last edited by PistolPackingMomma; 03-28-2014 at 01:28 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •