Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269

    Thumbs up Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court backed the rights of individuals to carry stun guns for self-defense, unanimously siding with a woman convicted of carrying an electrical weapon in a Massachusetts parking lot.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stun-g...134130410.html
    Good. Now, if they would apply the same logic they used in this case to a properly holstered handgun.

    Tasers are a lethal weapon too.
    "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

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Rape whistles are legal too...

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    They cited Heller in an unanimous decision, Heller was about handguns. I don't see how this will not carry over to firearms, this could be monumental. Even if Obama gets a liberal judge on the court it looks like the Heller decision will stand. If she was carrying the stun gun in public this will further enforce right to carry decisions. IF the court does not for some reason believe that guns are not included in self defense rights. This has to be a big disappointment for Obama, and the Beast.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    They cited Heller in an unanimous decision, Heller was about handguns. I don't see how this will not carry over to firearms, this could be monumental. Even if Obama gets a liberal judge on the court it looks like the Heller decision will stand. If she was carrying the stun gun in public this will further enforce right to carry decisions. IF the court does not for some reason believe that guns are not included in self defense rights. This has to be a big disappointment for Obama, and the Beast.
    +1
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...10078_aplc.pdf

    The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendent right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Masschusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

    The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

    The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

    Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found“nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

    For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    The Masschusetts supreme court just got a tongue lashing that they will never forget.
    Last edited by color of law; 03-21-2016 at 05:32 PM. Reason: Fixed it"s to its

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post

    The Masschusetts supreme court just got a tongue lashing that they will never forget.
    And well deserved. This type of rationale is beyond belief in a nation that now has well over 100 years of solid jurisprudence on freedom of the press and speech and decades of jurisprudence on 4th amendment issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by From the decision
    The court offered three explanations to support it"s holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”
    Every media outlet in the nation should have been up in arms over this rationale being used. Sorry CNN, NBC, Washington Post, et al. But you see, Radio, Television, offset high speed printing presses, and the Internet were not in common use at the time of the First Amendment's enactment and so do not enjoy free speech protections. You may hire a town crier to distribute your news verbally, or you can print broadsheets using manual presses with movable type.

    And since x-rays, thermal imaging, wireless bugs, and laser mics were not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Fourth Amendment, nothing protects the citizen from the government's use of these devices to gather whatever information they can gather.

    Speaking of radios, let's also mention that since neither radios nor airplanes were known at the time the Inter-State Commerce clause was adopted, the feds have to immediately shut down the FCC and FAA.

    Not an ounce of intellectual honesty or consistency among the whole the lot of Massachusetts judges. Not that that shocks me in the least.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The court offered three explanations to support it"s holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”
    Why put an apostrophe (I know, you used a quote mark) where it is: 1) inaccurate, and 2) not in the original writing?

    it's = it is
    its = possessive form of "it"

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    And Tasers are not firearms .... so all those states with firearms permit requirements would not apply to Tasers.

    Hehehehe ... the antis should just stun themselves to death.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And Tasers are not firearms .... so all those states with firearms permit requirements would not apply to Tasers.

    Hehehehe ... the antis should just stun themselves to death.
    I am not so sure it would affect concealed carry of a taser, the problem with the woman was the taser was banned period. I don't think the ruling comes anywhere close to affecting permits to carry a taser, or requiring open carry, or both. Remember the decisions this one was based on did not affect permit requirements.

    What it does affect is complete bans on self defense weapons. It might lead to changing the CHP in NC to a CWP. Most weapons can be carried in NC as long as they are carried open. But states like NY, this is a big loss for them.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-21-2016 at 04:56 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    [ ... ] But states like NY, this is a big loss for them.
    From an Alito bound court. Now, SCOTUS unbound.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Why put an apostrophe (I know, you used a quote mark) where it is: 1) inaccurate, and 2) not in the original writing?

    it's = it is
    its = possessive form of "it"
    I cut and pasted directly from the material that "color of law" quoted. Would you be happier if I put a (sic) behind it?

    I am perfectly aware of the difference between it's and its. I have no idea what it"s would mean.

    And especially when it comes to quoted material, there is a reason we call 'em grammar/spelling Nazis.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Some more very good info on this decision full story at the link


    http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/201...at-second.html


    In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,". As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:

    But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.

    Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms," even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
    The unsigned opinion is very short. It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito. Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond electric stun guns and Massachusetts. Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And Tasers are not firearms .... so all those states with firearms permit requirements would not apply to Tasers.
    Depends on how the statutes are worded.

    For example, Utah Statute at 53-5-7 creates a "Concealed Firearm Permit."

    However, that permit exempts the holder from our laws against carrying a loaded gun in public which enables the holder to carry a fully loaded firearm OC which is otherwise not legal.

    That permit also exempts the holder from our laws against carrying concealed dangerous weapons (with the exception of short barreled shot-guns and full auto firearms). The exemption is not merely for concealed firearms, but for any weapon excepting short shotguns and full autos.

    The permit also exempts the holder from the State level Gun Free School Zone law, and then by extension exempts him from the federal GFSZ law.

    Finally, the permit also exempts the holder from the law requiring payment of a fee ($4 or so) for running the Brady Instant Background Check when buying a gun from an FFL.

    This is important, because Utah law doesn't prohibit carrying just a concealed firearm, but prohibits carrying any concealed dangerous weapon. Penalties for a loaded gun are higher than other dangerous weapons. But all dangerous weapons are covered by the ban on concealed carrying. A permit then offers an exemption.

    In law, definitions matter. We could call it the FooBar Permit and not change a thing about what it does for the holder as long as the law contained the same exemptions above for a "FooBar Permit" as it currently contains for the "Concealed Firearm Permit."

    In fact, our State law explicitly recognizes permits issued by all other States, regardless of specific name of the permit. So whether it is a "Pistol Carry Permit" or a "Handgun Carry License" or a "Concealed Carry Weapon Permit" or anything else, it is treated the same for purposes of carrying a self-defense weapon in Utah.

    Titles, and especially short titles, are far less meaningful than what the details of the law, including definitions call out.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 03-21-2016 at 05:31 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I cut and pasted directly from the material that "color of law" quoted. Would you be happier if I put a (sic) behind it?

    I am perfectly aware of the difference between it's and its. I have no idea what it"s would mean.

    And especially when it comes to quoted material, there is a reason we call 'em grammar/spelling Nazis.

    Charles
    Each to their respective corners.

    From PDF to Word to OCDO the quote mark appeared. So, for those that get their panties in a knot - blame me.....

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    They cited Heller in an unanimous decision, Heller was about handguns. I don't see how this will not carry over to firearms, this could be monumental. Even if Obama gets a liberal judge on the court it looks like the Heller decision will stand. If she was carrying the stun gun in public this will further enforce right to carry decisions. ....
    +1

    As much as I hate to admit it, a decision like this forces me to have a little respect for the liberal wing of the court in terms of respecting precedence.

    Not that I have a bit of hope they will ever vote to extend the precedence to anything close to what I'd want to see. But maintaining current precedence on Heller and McDonald is no small matter as they would seem to stand as bulwarks against any kind of State or federal confiscation, at least.

    Or maybe, they are just biding their time until the future makeup of the court is not in question.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I cut and pasted directly from the material that "color of law" quoted. ...
    I understand. CoL bears close watching...

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    ... As much as I hate to admit it, a decision like this forces me to have a little respect for the liberal wing of the court in terms of respecting precedence.

    Not that I have a bit of hope they will ever vote to extend the precedence to anything close to what I'd want to see. But maintaining current precedence on Heller and McDonald is no small matter as they would seem to stand as bulwarks against any kind of State or federal confiscation, at least. ...
    But the fact that they refused to hear an RKBA case involving a circuit-split makes me very, very wary.
    Last edited by BB62; 03-21-2016 at 06:18 PM.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    "Refused to hear"? This is a "Per Curiam" opinion. Its a win. They didn't refuse anything. They just said "this is wrong" and "get it right". A remand is a better outcome than a 4/4 split. They have made their intention clear to the Mass. Court. It was such an obvious departure from Heller there was no need to go through anything more. The errors of the Mass. Supreme Court were too obvious to justify a "De Novo" hearing.
    Calm down now! I wasn't referring to this case, since it's not the one "involving a circuit-split".

    That case,
    as I said and whatever its name, they refused to hear - and therefore in disagreement with utbagpiper, I have no praise for the liberal wing of the court just because they didn't speak up this time.


    Added: the case name is
    Powell v. Tompkins, http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=3479
    Last edited by BB62; 03-21-2016 at 09:24 PM. Reason: inserted case name

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Now, if they would apply the same logic they used in this case to a properly holstered handgun.
    Um, no. We don't want to invite regulations on how our handgun is "holstered". My friend has a Clipdraw device and there are people that object to it. N.O.T.F.B how his pistol is carried.
    I sometimes drive with my Glock in the center counsel of my car. Perfectly legal here, but I wouldn't want some lawyer deciding it wasn't "properly holstered".
    And what about the open carry of long guns? You want they should have to be in a case?

    Sorry for the nitpick, but lets be careful about the terminology we use.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
    Um, no. We don't want to invite regulations on how our handgun is "holstered". My friend has a Clipdraw device and there are people that object to it. N.O.T.F.B how his pistol is carried.
    I sometimes drive with my Glock in the center counsel of my car. Perfectly legal here, but I wouldn't want some lawyer deciding it wasn't "properly holstered".
    And what about the open carry of long guns? You want they should have to be in a case?

    Sorry for the nitpick, but lets be careful about the terminology we use.
    We OC our handguns in a proper holster. CC however you like.

    Your friends' Clipraw device (http://clipdraw.com/) is clearly intended for CC based on the company's website. If he were to adapt it for OC, which it does not appear is recommended (possible) by the company, then you nit would merit further discussion.

    Can you cite any law from any state that requires that a citizen must holster his firearm while in a vehicle? I'll wait.

    As to the LG comment, cases are not holsters. Besides, is there any law in any state that makes it unlawful to carry a soft/hard rifle case out in public?

    Finally, your nit is with OCDO because "properly holstered handgun" is exactly the terminology used in Forum Rule (14). Your friends Clipdraw device is unsafe because there is no method to protect the trigger from being manipulated...to each their own.
    "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

  21. #21
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    We OC our handguns in a proper holster. CC however you like.

    Your friends' Clipraw device (http://clipdraw.com/) is clearly intended for CC based on the company's website. If he were to adapt it for OC, which it does not appear is recommended (possible) by the company, then you nit would merit further discussion.

    Can you cite any law from any state that requires that a citizen must holster his firearm while in a vehicle? I'll wait.

    As to the LG comment, cases are not holsters. Besides, is there any law in any state that makes it unlawful to carry a soft/hard rifle case out in public?

    Finally, your nit is with OCDO because "properly holstered handgun" is exactly the terminology used in Forum Rule (14). Your friends Clipdraw device is unsafe because there is no method to protect the trigger from being manipulated...to each their own.
    Yes, NC unfortunately. Because NC makes no distinction between loaded, and unloaded. Unless a case has a lock on it it provides access to the carrier which without a license is a concealed weapons offense. I put my long guns in a case in the vehicle to protect them from damage, if I carry them in public they are uncased.

    In Illinoise it is the reverse, any gun can be cased unloaded and is legal carry, in fact the only way to carry except for a CC permit.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Yes, NC unfortunately. Because NC makes no distinction between loaded, and unloaded. Unless a case has a lock on it it provides access to the carrier which without a license is a concealed weapons offense. I put my long guns in a case in the vehicle to protect them from damage, if I carry them in public they are uncased.

    In Illinois it is the reverse, any gun can be cased unloaded and is legal carry, in fact the only way to carry except for a CC permit.
    I recall NC law now that you mention it. Being from SC and having hunted in NC I've carried my soft case w/shoulder strap, unlocked, at the c-store out in the NC sticks on hunts. If a local cop/deputy asked me a question all they wanted answered was "where ya huntin at" and "whatcha huntin." It was more of a "wish I was huntin too" kinda questioning.

    Thanks for reminding me, it has been quite a while since my last huntin trip in NC.

    My response to pkbites is in regards to his comment about properly holstered firearms and his concerns regarding defining what a proper holster is. A proper holster (or closed case) renders the firearm in as safe a condition as possible regarding the prevention of inadvertent trigger manipulation while being carried. Thus my use of OCing a "properly holstered handgun" is what our fellow citizens need to see us doing to normalize OC by non LE.

    Thanks again for the reminder.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I recall NC law now that you mention it. Being from SC and having hunted in NC I've carried my soft case w/shoulder strap, unlocked, at the c-store out in the NC sticks on hunts. If a local cop/deputy asked me a question all they wanted answered was "where ya huntin at" and "whatcha huntin." It was more of a "wish I was huntin too" kinda questioning.

    Thanks for reminding me, it has been quite a while since my last huntin trip in NC.

    My response to pkbites is in regards to his comment about properly holstered firearms and his concerns regarding defining what a proper holster is. A proper holster (or closed case) renders the firearm in as safe a condition as possible regarding the prevention of inadvertent trigger manipulation while being carried. Thus my use of OCing a "properly holstered handgun" is what our fellow citizens need to see us doing to normalize OC by non LE.

    Thanks again for the reminder.
    If you can lock the trigger with the gun in the case then there is no immediate access, and it would be legal. NC is based on immediate access, somehow that is confusing because an unloaded gun is not immediately accessible. But those are the rules we live with here. Personally I have seen hunters around here LG OC when entering a business in hunting season. It is only around the Yankees in places like FayettNam, Cary, Raleigh, Chapel Hill where the Yuppies go into a state of panic.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    - and therefore in disagreement with utbagpiper, I have no praise for the liberal wing of the court just because they didn't speak up this time.
    I'm afraid less disagreement than it might have appeared at first. I'm having to modify my position after doing a little research on "per curium" decisions. I read [url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/scholarship-highlight-the-supreme-courts-misuse-of-per-curiam-opinions/]"The Supreme Court’s misuse of per curiam opinions" by Ira Robbins.

    He argues that per curium opinions should really only be used for that are completely cut and dried, well settled, or procedural. Since I don't think 2nd amendment law yet fits into that case for the American Judiciary (as opposed to what we here would argue should be the case), that leads us to what Robbins calls the misuse of such decisions.

    The misuse of per curium, he argues, denies accountability and prevents the advancement of law.


    Individually attributed opinions and publicly recorded votes are the primary instruments for holding appellate judges and Justices accountable, because those opinions are the sole chronicle of their work. The signed opinion provides the public with a window into the inner workings of the courts that fosters judicial accountability through an environment of individual responsibility. As then-Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg once remarked, “Public accountability through the disclosure of votes and opinion authors puts the judge’s conscience and reputation on the line.” Thomas Jefferson wrote to the same effect: “The practice [of writing per curiam opinions] is certainly convenient for the lazy, the modest, & the incompetent.”

    ...

    Knowledge of an opinion’s author provides a useful guide for attorneys, allowing them to sort through an array of decisions and examine particular opinions for hints regarding a Justice’s jurisprudential or philosophical leanings on specific issues. Use of the per curiam strips the opinion of this important tool that judges, attorneys, and the public rely on in analyzing and comprehending court decisions.

    So while the decision is a win for self defense and the liberal members did not vote to over-turn the Heller and McDonald precedence, neither did they personally sign on to any particulars.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Thus my use of OCing a "properly holstered handgun" is what our fellow citizens need to see us doing to normalize OC by non LE.
    In other words we need to let the perceptions of the ignorant define our rights? No thank you.

    I would prefer to use the term "properly carried' and omit the holster part, simply because using the term holster invites scrutiny from those that have no idea what they're talking about.

    THIS could be described as properly holstered. You really want to stick a shackle around the trigger of a loaded weapon? But it's what some people are required to do because of the decisions of ignorant people.

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
  •