Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
hoping the bickering and arguing (if they do that when discussing a case) causes a few heart failures
SCOTUS w/ Gorsuch on 4/13: Peruta v CA "good cause"
- Thread starter VietnamEraVet
- Start date
John Stark
.44 mag
Nothing like besmirching the reputation and legacy of a good and decent man after he's dead.
How exactly is it his fault that one of the squishes went soft and refused to take up any other gun cases after McDonald incorporated the 2A under Heller to the States?
I am very confident that it was either Kennedy and/or Roberts who refused to take up any other gun cases after Heller & McDonald: Kennedy because he's always had a degree of unpredictability with regards to his oath to uphold the Constitution as originally written and meant (Olbergfell is only one glaring and terrible example); Roberts because of his signing onto Obamacare as "being a tax" and therefore Constitutional, forcing the People into "association" with health insurance providers that they did not want. Both of them have back-stabbed the We the People.
These really are the only two options: the 4 liberals on the Court have no real interest in upholding Heller; Thomas & Alito are both locks on the 2A, and have decried the other justices more than once for not taking other, pressing 2A cases since Heller and McDonald (see Caetano, for example). That clearly leaves Kennedy or Roberts as the back-stabbers.
It takes four justices to sign off to get a case heard before the Court. Nine justices, minus the four liberals, would have left Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, & Alito.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were solid on the 2A. Without a fourth, they couldn't get another case heard in the first place. Even with a fourth justice on their side, either Kennedy or Roberts, the other one may have made it clear that they would rule against any given case that was up for consideration.
Blaming Scalia for not being able to arm twist 4 other justices to take another gun case is ridiculous.
Heller affirmed, and McDonald incorporated to the States, that the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is an individual Right, and rightly affirmed that while the Militia concept the Founders had is dependent upon an armed populace, while at the same time affirming that the Right of the People to Bear Arms itself is NOT dependent upon belonging to any given militia unit. It also affirmed that self-defense is a Right.
It put the final nail in the coffin of the leftist argument that Arms are only for those in the military and police forces, as well as the idea that Arms for civilians are merely for restricted purposes like hunting.
That alone is a tremendous safegaurd that has already born good fruit for the nation, and will continue to do so.
Like it or not, even if four justices had signed off on another 2A case, that is still not enough justices to get a 5/4 decision. Scalia is not to blame for the backstabbers.
Lifting your leg to take a leak on the grave of a good and decent man, who wrote one of the strongest originalist opinions for the Court in the last hundred years, is nothing more than petty vindictiveness.
Last edited:
I peg Kennedy as wishy washy, and Roberts as a definite traitorous bastard. That was clear as day with his twisted logic that kept us saddled with Obamacare.
I think there may very well be fire regarding his two adopted children (supposedly from South America?, but look more like they came from Ireland, which would be illegal). My guess is that Obama and company own his ass. Maybe someday, someone can snag something the kids throw down, and send it out for a DNA sample to prove that?
So, you may well be right John,- getting Gorsuch to SCOTUS helps, but until we can get more true conservatives appointed we are still behind the 8 ball.
Last edited:
John Stark
.44 mag
Yep, its terribly complex. Open carry is the Right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Concealed carry is not.
Hard to understand! So hard, that I could explain it to my grade-school age son and he got it!
Of course, its not really, should one take the time to read Heller and the cases and history the decision was based on that go back to the Founding and Colonial eras.
So for the reading impaired, here is the synopsis version.
The Founders of this nation, both the upper crust and the foot slogging soldier, were British subjects prior to the Revolution. Under British law, their countrymen had fought a civil war against the crown, and one of the results for the victors of that war was that Protestants could not longer be denied the Right to openly Bear Arms.
This was one of the main reasons the American colonials finally decided to revolt, along with British attempts to force them into the Church England, and taxation without representation.
As part of their heritage, these British subjects were used to living under English Common Law. Under English Common Law, the bearing of concealed weapons was considered to be "unmanly" or "cowardly," the option that thieves, robbers, rebels, and assassins made use of. When they won their battle against their former British overlord, they adopted almost wholesale, or in tweaked versions, the tenets of British Common Law to rule themselves in their own States and communities. This included the notion that concealed carry was anathema.
It ought to be noted that it was the States that ratified the Second Amendment in the first place...
This was recognized in State court after State court once the nation was founded, and many (maybe most) of these courts also held that the States could no more disarm the populace or refuse them the Right to openly Bear Arms than the Feds could under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court weighed in on this as well, long ago before Heller was a gleam in the eye of Scalia.
The men who fought the Revolution, who killed their fellow British subjects for trying to take their Arms, did not bat an eye at their laws, which were based upon or drawn from English Common Law.
It is not hard to understand this at all, unless one goes merely by the articles of the various gun rights groups who seek to deny political and legal reality.
Furthermore, its absurd to insist that we read the Constitution and say, "it means this." That is exactly how the leftists on the Court have warped and distorted the Constitution to the point that it is meaningless drivel once we grant their claims. That is "Living Constitution" garbage.
This is why "textualism" and "originalism" are so important when it comes to passing laws and making rulings or executive decisions upon the law, and the lack of scholarly interest to get back to what the Constitution actually means is a weapon that only serves those that want to destroy it.
I can explain this to my young son, and he gets it. You're a grown man, but its too complex to grok a written opinion from the Supreme Court that your own tax dollars pays to write decisions? Gimme a break.
So we can learn, and grow and stretch ourselves and work our minds, or we can stagnate and insist on holding views that the men of the time would have not recognized as Constitutional in the first place.
Last edited:
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Absolute best we could hope for out of Gorsuch is that he is a younger Scalia and just reset the clock. Absolure best case.
We need one of the lefties gone before anything will get any better than it was when the last 5 cases were denied cert.
Ginsburg is the odds on favorite to go, but if Trump gets 2 more justices, but they are just Thomas and Alito retiring, then we still haven't gained anything but a little time at best.
John Stark
.44 mag
Fear mongering nonsense.
Do you have any idea how apparent it is to even a layman like myself that you either haven't read the decisions you're talking about, or have either misconstrued them accidentally, or worse, purposely?
The entire point of Heller granted the plaintiff the opportunity to apply for a concealed carry license in DC, where licenses were mostly being denied except to a select few (cops, retired cops, prison guards, private security, and those with money or connections, like politicians and the rich and famous).
SCOTUS ruled that where such permits were offered, the process must be open to all. That is, in a nutshell, the entire point of the ruling for the plaintiff.
The States are never going to take away concealed permits at this point: the cops and retired cops (and other first responders), the private security guards who protect the rich and well-connected, former and current prison and jail guards, private detectives, bounty hunters, businessmen, and so on, would all howl bloody murder, not to mention the average Joe who slobbers all over his gun permit as if its printed on gold foil.
If they offer a license or permit to one, they must, as per Heller, offer them to all.
State concealed carry permits are not going anywhere, except in the 16 states that have done away with them, or mostly done away with them, altogether, in preference for Constitutional Carry. Even in Constitutional Carry states, they leave the option open to get the permit for reciprocity purposes with other states who refuse to acknowledge Constitutional Carry.
As to your point about businesses denying entry to those open carrying, that is a moot point for numerous reasons.
For starters, concealed carry is going nowhere, so that is an option even if businesses discriminate against open carriers.
As well, businesses are not allowed to discriminate against customers based on many rubrics that allow plenty of play for big lawsuits against them. This is part of the Civil Rights Act of '64. While I think businesses ought to be able to sell and buy from whomever they want (freedom of association), the Civil Rights Act is the law at the present time and creates strong opportunity for gun owners to sue businesses that refuse them service. Those that live by the law die by it as well.
Furthermore, gun owners are a loud, organized, vocal group, and even though they seemingly can't get their act together to take care of business and take out the trash with regards to our corrupt political masters, they hold a low of power in the current political climate.
The government fears them, which is exactly why they are trying to control them and strip them of their Rights. Just because a few states have gone almost full-on tyranny with regards to guns, most states have rejected this and gun rights are growing, not shrinking, in almost every state of the Union. This is why the government constantly runs stories about "right wing anti-government" types and "militias," rather than against the violent leftists and jihadists, who actually commit acts of terror and break laws.
Business owners are far easier to influence on this matter than the government: they do not have an armed civil and military force at their beck and call to protect them. If they don't want open carriers in their stores, they don't want concealed carriers either. Why would we want to patron their businesses at that point? The last thing these companies want, in the near and long term, are large boycotts against them.
Go ask Kellog's after it decided to not play nice with conservatives on sites like Breitbart, and dumped their advertising on sites that supported Trump: they've slipped from being the 60th largest business in the US to 84th in the last year and a half.
Go ask Target how they've made out after insisting that bathrooms be open to both sexes: they've lost 20 billion dollars in less than a year! All because they told men and women that their wives and daughters were going to have to share a bathroom with men who pretend to be women.
Gun owners have money, or they wouldn't be able to buy all of those evil guns. Spend it where businesses support our Rights, and this won't be a problem at all.
Last edited:
S
stuck in ny
Guest
I am most certainly not a fudd. A pistol is a tool to get back to your rifle. The "AW" stuff should be the first priority to fight.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Good explanation . Im actually learning alot by reading your posts in this thread JS, thanks.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
True for a soldier, or in your home, but when walking down the streets of a bad neighborhood you dont have anything to fight your way back to. Your handgun is all an average citizen has, out in public, to defend oneself and family.
Im sure you didnt actually mean what you said, but it did come off as "fuddish". The menality of only caring about 1 type of firearm is why we still have cuomo in office.
GuyMontag
.44 mag
Cry me a river John, I'D SAY IT TO HIS FACE if he were alive.
I wouldn't have expected such a feeble attempt to distract from you, idol worship is not your friend.
I don't always agree with GuyM, but he is exactly right about Scalia and the Supreme Court. Heller was a Trojan horse. It held that the 2nd amendment is a limited right. One quarter of U.S. population came under draconian gun bans, after Heller and McDonald. If that was a victory, than I am a Lindbergh's baby. Talking about a rigged system. U.S. Supreme Court is a shinning example. These assholes only return favors to the elites who helped them along the way, they do nothing for people who cheered them on. Until they actually do something that matters, they can go and fuck themselves. How many times are we going to fall for the same fraud.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you read what I wrote, I never said that they would get rid of concealed carry in it's entirety.
As far as business go, the difference between boycotts for same sex bathrooms vs gun carry is stark. You aren't going to get soccer moms in NY and NJ boycotting Target because they do not allow open carry. It'll be business as usual in these states. Hell, even in pro-gun states like Texas they ban firearms in businesses and nobody is boycotting. They just disarm or conceal their firearm and enter the store. There are many examples of this.
Protesting speech and same sex bathrooms is apples and oranges compared to protesting gun rights. Whether you like it or not or do not want to admit it, gun activists are a minority even in pro-gun states. If that weren't the case, open carry would be forced on casinos in Nevada, businesses in Texas, ect. Having a guy with a penis pissing in a woman's bathroom is cause for people from all political agendas to band together when it affects them directly. Not so with guns.
John Stark
.44 mag
I don't worship any man, but I can and do respect some of them who are worthy of it.
You might do the same to those who aren't your enemies, though I'm sure you'll continue on with your bitter, sarcastic insults to anyone and everyone who refuses to slurp up the line of BS you constantly attempt to feed them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I know you aren't a Fudd. I just called you one however so that you can see that they do the same thing. I don't own wheel guns, lever guns, and shotguns. If they did however try to ban one of those, I'd oppose it even though I think they are useless compared to what's available now.
This phrase of using a pistol to get to your rifle gets repeated over and over and it isn't correct. A pistol is never a tool to get to your rifle. A pistol is either your primary or secondary. A pistol for a civilian not at war is his primary in public. A pistol for a cop is his primary in public.
In the military or in a situation where a civilian is at war, a pistol is a last resort weapon that's rarely used. The long gun is already in your hand so you will be doing no fighting with a pistol to get to it.
John Stark
.44 mag
The Second Amendment, as all of our Constitutional rights, are in fact limited, and they always have been.
We free to exercise our religion, but not to harm others or force them to follow it.
We are typically free to speak, but not in a court of law during a criminal or civil case, unless its our turn when called upon to offer testimony.
We can generally write and print what we want, but we cannot threaten in writing to overthrow the US government, nor can we abuse our Right such that we sell out our own country by copying classified information and selling it to a foreign power.
We cannot wave our guns around and threaten other people with them.
And so on.
Those who founded our nation rightly understood that our Rights were not a license for evil deeds, or to harm our fellow citizens. Indeed, that is the rubric by which they determined that open carry was the Right protected, out of concern for "unmanly" or "cowardly" use of concealed weapons by criminals, even if we don't agree with that rubric at this time.
As far as your assertion that some states passed draconian gun laws post-Heller, and laying that blame on Scalia as some sort of cause and effect relationship, that is nonsense. Its one thing to call out the Court for not backing up their own decisions once other parts of the US government refuse to enforce them or directly contradict them; its another thing altogether to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The states that passed those laws did so precisely because they understood how sweeping Heller was.
Heller affirmed the RKBA to be an individual right, self-defense to be an individual right, that the right existed outside of membership in a militia, that Due Process must be followed when issuing concealed carry permits, etc.
So how about you define what is exactly wrong about those affirmations, all of them old, liberal canards that sought to redefine the RKBA to be strictly limited to membership in the military or the police.
You might note, if you were honest, that the affirmation of open carry in Heller did not include any authority for States to require permits to own or carry... openly, unlike concealed carry where they upheld a State's authority to limit it through permits and licensing.
I also note that you fail to mention that lots of states have gone full Constitutional Carry since Heller, and that most other states have, in fact, loosened restrictions upon the RKBA rather than followed the bad examples of NY, CA, Mass, Connecticut, and so on.
If SCOTUS is to blame for a "quarter of the US population coming under draconian gun bans," after Heller and McDonald, are they to be praised for the fact that the rest of the nation has loosened gun restrictions as well?
GuyMontag
.44 mag
John, I'm laughing my arse off over the hill you've decided to plant your flag on to die for, all for the sake of idol worship.
Taking exception with Scalia's 2nd Amendment bona fides, is not an attack on his "decency", nor does it make him an "enemy." You jumped ugly when I didn't join your bandwagon of bullshit, but please keep dancing, you've no idea the entertainment value you're providing, keep on slurping buddy!
John Stark
.44 mag
I read and responded to exactly what you wrote: the assertion that States would do away with concealed carry permits for anyone besides cops. That is precisely what Heller said States cannot do with regards to concealed carry.
The soccer moms in NJ and NY were not boycotting Target either; many in these states have embraced the lunacy of transmutilation, and a crap ton of those living in these depraved states love Targets for being "inclusive." Where exactly do you think this kind of lunacy eminates from, if not from the most liberal, bass-akward states in the nation?
Just as these very same states lead in draconian gun laws, high taxes, over-regulation, and so on.
And yet Target still took a massive hit in the pocketbook, despite the granola eaters and earth-worshipers who fill these states up.
There are over 3 million concealed carry holders in NY alone, with all of the attendant hoops and fees that go with that. How many own long guns, eh? I bet above the 38th parallel of NY City, those numbers are in the double digits.
There are at least a half-billion small arms in the hand of Americans, and yet gun owners as activists are a minority in most states?
Get real.
That is due, I think, too cowardice. Most Gun owners do not want to get involved in the Protection of their Rights. We have gun stores that are openly not friends of the 2A and Gun Owners continue to give them their money. They continue to re-elect the same Anti-gun politicians and so on.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Then why is open carry not allowed in Nevada casinos? Why are more signs that hold the force of law popping up in Texas making it even more difficult to carry? Where is this massive protest from the majority in Texas and Nevada? There is none. Get real.
Is Open Carry Backfiring on Texas Gun Owners?
It was always well understood there are no absolute rights, but they lowered the threshold for the 2nd amendment to what government believes to be reasonable limits. De facto this makes it no longer a right.
No one argued in cases before them that 2nd was absolute right, unlike any other. They didn't need to put that in. They screwed us and NRA spun it as a victory.
No one argued in cases before them that 2nd was absolute right, unlike any other. They didn't need to put that in. They screwed us and NRA spun it as a victory.
Last edited:
RDN
.357 mag
Agreed, there are one or two "conservative" justices that may waffle on the gun rights scenario. Not sure which justice wavered on Heller or McDonald rulings. I believe Justice Kennedy is the "wildcard".
Last edited:
John Stark
.44 mag
I certainly agree with you on this to a large extent, but its not the whole story either.
We are well aware of what can happen to protesters openly sporting weapons: harassment, arrest, charges, jail, long court trials, lots of money to lawyers, and potentially prison or even getting shot are all possible outcomes of open carry in a political and moral environment that makes it out to be a crime.
The government has all the resources to persecute any one of us, and without numbers, people are afraid to suffer the consequences: especially when there are many in the 2A community and groups that would gladly hang them out to dry or leave them in prison to rot.
Further, gun rights have only loosened up in the states where they have since the Reagan era: up until the mid 80's the vast majority of states were, in fact, may issue.
Its taken a long time for people get used to the idea of freedom with regards to Arms, and that process goes on. Since '86, things have changed for the better in most states with regards to the RKBA. However, proponents of the 2A have opted for the slow, steady approach, using the legal and political system. That's great for states where people care about their government, but that approach is never going to work here, because of the demographics.
Prior to '86, after which things began to loosen up after the long slog from the '68 Gun Control Act, people opted to hunker down. They got away with that and got a lot of their RKBA restored over time because their states were not complete cess pits in terms of Liberty as NY, CA, Mass, and so on, were. Further, their representative and officials were more responsive to their demands.
Even so, there is a mindset among many gun owners to be more than conservative, to the point of timidity. Even in a rather independent State like Texas, after all, we saw a lot of people burned up by the ATF and FBI, right in the midst of the 90's "militia movement" at Waco. The Clinton era was a major set back for the 2A and all of our Liberties for more reasons than the Brady Bill. We watched our own officials and agents kill a lot of people live on CNN, and that has made a lasting impression that resonates to this day. We all know that the .gov can't take us all on, but individually we are weak and can be slaughtered if the perfect storm of political circumstances and officials willing "to never let a crisis go to waste" prevail.
So, its been the political model, and that has been highly successful in most states.
However, in NY, for example, we know that no one in Albany cares about the 2A, and that NY government is run by the communists and the mob out of NY City. CA and other states are so far gone its doubtful what can be done at the local or state level unless the Feds intervene (they could under US Code), or the People finally get sick of it.
People are scared. Getting busted in most states results in a loss of permit, which means no more carry for those who cannot open carry without a permit. In states like NY, that means loss of all gun Rights with laws like UnSafe.
When I was previously speaking with people about organizing an open carry rally here in NY, the vast majority were a loud NO! I bet the ratio was at least 100:1 against such a move, even though I had a legal strategy, a lawyer or three in my back pocket, and relatively sound principles to get it organized. I had offers of thousands of dollars in donations, but few willing to go beyond that and actually show up.
No one wants to be first in the gulag states, and in the free states, they have longer-term options, including donating to their preferred gun groups to lobby their representatives.
They also have a lot more freedom than we do here or in CA; they can buy handguns with no permit, they can keep them in their cars, etc. They can get hand guns whereas in states like NY, they can't touch one without a permit. That is Tyranny, with all the weight of the law behind the poisoned fruit of it.
I submit, if we could bribe the NY politicians enough, they would pass Constitutional Carry over the protests of the NY City crowd. However, the funding and support that comes out of the City would have to be overwhelming matched and surpassed.
Bottom line, it is certainly on the shoulders of the People, but in many states that weight has greatly lessened while in the more draconian states the weight is enough to crush any individual or even a small group. As a "practical" matter, the movement suffers from fear of arrest, which creates an atmosphere of anxiety, backbiting, infighting, and a general lack of solidarity that keeps the large numbers of gun owners divided and against one another rather than against their political masters.
Its a complex problem, and its solved only in one of two ways: the long political slog, or the brute force method.
One of those methods is seen as safe, and the other is seen as... UnSafe.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
I couldn't care less about which store doesn't want me to be open carrying. For every "No Guns" sign, there are 5 more stores with their hand out looking for my money who don't care if I have a gun visible or not. I honestly don't give a shit which way it goes for handguns, open vs concealed, as long as it gets done without violating people's rights. AFAIC, it should be up to the discretion of the gun owner. There are places I'd much rather carry concealed, others it wouldn't matter.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That'll work for you. Not so with the majority. Some believe open carry in confined public places is just tactically stupid. Actually it isn't a belief but rather a fact.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's because you are wearing a uniform or in an unconfined space in a good neighborhood wearing plain clothes.
Try doing that in a Subway car with no uniform or visible badge or in a housing project in Brooklyn.
On or off duty. Cop life or everyday civilian, never, ever have they tried. I have not been to NYC since 1988, I do not plan on going back any time soon.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Look. I'm not saying that it's a common everyday occurence but it happens just like it isn't a common everyday occurence in needing to discharge your weapon but it happens . In a descent neighborhood bad things happening by carrying open are not so much in regards to occurrences. In a bad neighborhoods, that's another matter. It doesn't happen often there though because open carry is usually banned in those places and when not banned, most people aren't stupid enough to do it.
There is a reason Air Marshalls carry concealed and not open in uniform. You can probably figure that one out on why. I'm sure of it.
I get that you like it. I get that it's a right. I get it all. But to dispute that open carry is the same tactically as concealed carry in confined, public spaces in bad neighborhoods when not in uniform and the cavalry is no longer a radio call away is just a lie.
Whether you go to NYC or not has no revelance on the fact that it's tactically unwise.
We've danced this dance before already.