• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS Needs to Reaffirm RKBA Extends Outside of Home

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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/2014/02/14/us-usa-guns-california-idUSBREA1D03D20140214 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...-for-supreme-court-to-take-up-drake/?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?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,398
Location
White Oak Plantation
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 Then the stupid laws will be repealed and the only "law" remaining regarding guns is the 2A.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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 Then the stupid laws will be repealed and the only "law" remaining regarding guns is the 2A.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
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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:

Drake v. Jerejian Petition for a writ of certiorari said:
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 :D
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
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.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
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?
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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)
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_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.
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
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....:lol:
 
Top