Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Step by step: The foundation of Heller and McDonald is starting to add some framework

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Step by step: The foundation of Heller and McDonald is starting to add some framework

    Maryland crime victim sues over denial to renew permit to carry concealed handgun

    Sounds like an excellent case. The most amusing snip:

    "Good luck to him," spokesman [for CeaseFire Maryland, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control] Casey Anderson said[, brushing off the challenge]. "I would have a hard time imagining that the Supreme Court is going to say you have a constitutional right to hide a firearm on your person."

    Said apparently without thinking through that if you deny "shall issue" concealed carry permits, you then must have a "shall-issue permit" or un-permitted form of open carry! Oh the shock and horror that will ensue!

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 08-18-2010 at 03:22 PM. Reason: Spell much?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't know about SCOTUS, but the AL Supreme Court would probably also say that there is no constitutional right to conceal, only to carry. In the ruling the protects the right to OC for Alabamians, the ALSC said that the State could restrict CC or OC, but not both. They also tended towards OC, since CC is what the bad guys do.

    The State chose to restrict CC, so all laws generally restricting carry are interpreted as restricting CC, not OC.

    In essence, the laws do not restrict carry. They restrict concealment. For that reason, I would have no objection to any of the games they play with permits--if it weren't for the law requiring a permit to carry a gun in your car. We gotta get that one changed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Yep, either-or. This story is in Maryland, where OC is pretty much equivalent to walking around with a corpse slung over your back.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Yep, either-or. This story is in Maryland, where OC is pretty much equivalent to walking around with a corpse slung over your back.

    TFred
    Yeah, your own corpse. As far as Maryland LEOs would have it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Yeah, your own corpse. As far as Maryland LEOs would have it.
    This would be LOL funny if it wasn't so heart-breakingly true...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 08-18-2010 at 11:30 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't know about SCOTUS, but the AL Supreme Court would probably also say that there is no constitutional right to conceal, only to carry. In the ruling the protects the right to OC for Alabamians, the ALSC said that the State could restrict CC or OC, but not both. They also tended towards OC, since CC is what the bad guys do.

    The State chose to restrict CC, so all laws generally restricting carry are interpreted as restricting CC, not OC.

    In essence, the laws do not restrict carry. They restrict concealment. For that reason, I would have no objection to any of the games they play with permits--if it weren't for the law requiring a permit to carry a gun in your car. We gotta get that one changed.
    That's the trap they laid for themselves in Ohio.

    They claimed there was no need for concealed carry because the courts ruled that open carry was protected. Then when people open carried they cried about that. That drove home the need for shall-issue concealed carry. But now that the courts have already ruled, open carry is also legal.

    If you're going to have enemies, it's best to have stupid ones.
    Last edited by Deanimator; 08-19-2010 at 01:28 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Requiring" the issue of a "permit" is silly.

    Here is the best possible solution: Open carry (including in one's vehicle) by all who may lawfully possess a firearm is a right. Concealing weapons (not the bare act of carrying) is a privilege that may or may not be licensed by the State. Then, who cares about "shall issue" vs. "may issue." That would simply be a policy decision of the legislature.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Said apparently without thinking through that if you deny "shall issue" concealed carry permits, you then must have a "shall-issue permit" or un-permitted form of open carry! Oh the shock and horror that will ensue!

    TFred
    I think that shall issue has problems. There is a waiting period, costs, privacy, suspension and revokation of the license, etc. I think that unlicensed open carry is going to be the standard with government allowed to narrowly regulate who may not open carry. It may take awhile as it seems to me that the SAF and NRA don't like open carry.

Posting Permissions

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