SCOTUS w/ Gorsuch on 4/13: Peruta v CA "good cause"

[John Stark]

Then why is open carry not allowed in Nevada casinos?

Maybe because casinos are private businesses that launder money for organized crime? Maybe because Nevada is an almost wholly owned-subsidiary of the Feds, where 85% of the land the federal government controls in that state? Maybe because the rest of the state is almost completely controlled in terms of politics and the law by Las Vegas interests, just like NY is now almost completely controlled by the laws and politics of Albany and NY City? Maybe because the politicians who represent Nevada at the State and Federal level are slimy, mob connected robots who get the crap beat out of them for not following orders, like Harry Reid?

That is exactly the reason why gun control groups, like the one run by Giffords and her odious husband, are targeting Nevada for "universal background checks" and other infringements: because it is low-hanging fruit where the government is run by people like Cuomo, who himself has long-standing mob ties (as do the Clintons).

So your example of where open carry doesn't work are businesses in a city and state where the rich and famous, and the politicians and corruptocrats, frolic? The people of Nevada who are not part of the crony system there have far less control of their state than even upstate NY does in the face of NY City and Albany.

I get that perhaps people might not actually follow politics in other states, but if you're going to offer ridiculous rhetorical questions to a "problem" that you've invented in your head, at least offer some credible examples that are not founded on complete ignorance of the political and legal realities in any given state when you do so.

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?

Is Open Carry Backfiring on Texas Gun Owners?

Talk about fake news! That is an "article" from a website that is run by a NRA hack, an organization that not only refuses to accept the Heller decision and the legal weight of it, but has been part and parcel on every single compromise of gun rights in the United States at the Federal level going back to the NFA of 1934. The article then proceeds to "detail" the "problem" by referring to posts made by members, who make "claims."

The NRA compromised on machine guns and everything else in the NFA at the time, contributing to the rise of ATF and the 200 tax and permit scheme to own an automatic weapon, SBRs, and so on. The NRA compromised when the NFA was struck down by SCOTUS and replaced with the Gun Control Act of '68. The NRA compromised on the FOPA bill under Reagan that outlawed the sale of new machineguns, except, of course, to law enforcement and the military, among other things in FOPA. The NRA compromised on the Brady Bill under Clinton, as well as the AWB of '94.

Every time there has been gun control, the NRA has been right there behind the wings, crafting the compromise legislation.

Have you verified those claims? How much time to do you spend in Texas? How many people do you know in Texas that are telling you about this "problem?" Do you have a CCW in Texas, and have you ever been denied service in any establishment there for carrying either openly or concealed?

Businesses have always had the right in Texas to put those signs up, but suddenly its a problem only because of open carry? It couldn't possibly be because the mega-corps are all liberal bastions of wealth that have an undue influence in politics, the law, and finance?

Dick's in NY pulled all ARs off the shelves, even when they weren't required to do so, because people buy ARs? Walmart has been pulling guns out of their stores across the nation, even in states where gun sales are booming, because people open carry, or like ARs?

The plain fact of the matter is that businesses all over the country have been putting those signs up and participating as gate keepers for gun control more and more, even where open carry of hand guns is outright banned.

Correlation is not causation, and the answer to businesses that are anti-American is to stop buying their crap.

For the low-information voters out there, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, has stated repeatedly that if the Texas legislature sends him a bill that would allow carry of Arms without a permit, he'll sign it.

The largest impediment to get that bill on his desk, oddly enough (!), are the cop associations and their lackeys in the legislature who take the lobbying money from those cop associations for their reelections.

Texas will very likely go Constitutional Carry during Abbot's tenure, and that in large part will be due to the political activists in the gun community there, both concealed and open carriers.

If enough businesses there put up signs that say "no carry," those businesses will suffer. Texas is not filled with liars, back biters, and do-nothings like NY is.

 

[John Stark]

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.

There are high crime areas, where the government refuses to police the crime, clean up the streets, and protect its citizens where it is mandated by law to do so, and further where open carry is outlawed because those areas are high crime neighborhoods in the first place.

Therefore, open carry is bad juju!

 

[John Stark]

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!

I can probably count on two hands the number of politicians in my life time that I've ever had a bit of respect for. Most of them are slimy lawyers who have as their only impetus to "serve" us is their never-ending drive to fund raise off the back of tax payers, promising them the world, while making sure the monied interests are taken care of to the detriment of everyone else.

But because I have some respect for a single justice of the Supreme Court who wrote an opinion that upholds the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to self-defense, and believe that it is wrong to lie about those who are dead and can not defend their reputation, that makes me an idolater.

For all your braggadocio, I can guarantee that you would not call me an idolater to my face and not regret it. I may not be a dead lion like Scalia, even if I am a live dog who has a modicum of respect for a true scholar.

Any time you want to get together for a cup of coffee and chat about that, send me a PM and we'll set a time and place. Don't forget to wear your $300 pants!

Serious offer. Take me up on it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If enough businesses there put up signs that so "no carry," those businesses will suffer. Texas is not filled with liars, back biters, and do-nothings like NY is.

I listen to a podcast called Handgun World. The guy who hosts the podcast has said that more businesses in his home state of Texas have put up more signs since open carry was implemented. He has mentioned of picking one day to do his errands unarmed. There are no mentions of massive boycotts in his show. Most people just disarm, buy what they need, and re-arm.

I know you don't like it or want to believe it, but no matter what state we are from, we as a group do not protest or boycott worth a damn. You can ignore Texas all you want.

Oh. And that mafia private business answer in Nevada Casinos is laughable. Of course they are private. The truth is that people don't care enough. Period. When you come to terms with that, you'll see things differently.

 

[John Stark]

I listen to a podcast called Handgun World. The guy who hosts the podcast has said that more businesses in his home state of Texas have put up more signs since open carry was implemented. He has mentioned of picking one day to do his errands unarmed. There are no mentions of massive boycotts in his show. Most people just disarm, buy what they need, and re-arm.

I know you don't like it or want to believe it, but no matter what state we are from, we as a group do not protest or boycott worth a damn. You can ignore Texas all you want.

Oh. And that mafia private business answer in Nevada Casinos is laughable. Of course they are private. The truth is that people don't care enough. Period. When you come to terms with that, you'll see things differently.

The only thing that you and your ilk are doing in this thread is obfuscating what the law states on these matters as prescribed by jurisprudence going back to the founding of this nation.

Peruta vs California is very likely to be denied Cert. by the Supreme Court, because States have both the authority and discretion to set the terms for concealed carry under Heller, which is where things stand as a matter of the law. Its possible that the "good cause" challenge in Peruta might be taken up by SCOTUS, and that Pertua could win his complaint on Due Process grounds.

However, he will not win on Second Amendment grounds, because the Court has already ruled that concealed carry is not the Right protected by the 2A.

This is why National Concealed Reciprocity is doomed. States will immediately sue over any such measure coming out of the US Congress in Federal court, and they're going to win on the merits. State do not have to concealed carry permits from other States, and they will roll up the gun groups like the NRA in short order on perfectly solid legal grounds.

However, rather than talking about where the law stands at this point, and the legal ramifications that pertain for all future cases dealing with the 2A, guys like you who have nothing to add to the legal discussion devolve these "discussions" into arguments about whether open carry is "tactical" or "preferred."

The only way the legal state of affairs is going to change is if Heller and McDonald are overturned.

So, carry on with your distractions and nonsense. I will note that you have actually not commented upon the law or the legal case in question in this thread at all.

Open carry is the wave of the future. It is lawful, per Heller and McDonald, in every state of the Union, just as it has been since its inception. The ramifications of this as we go along are, eventually, going to get settled at the Federal level, and the States will need to get in line on open carry.

Ride the wave and enjoy your Rights, or sit on the beach bemoaning the rules for it and complaining that everyone is not doing it the way you want them to.

 

[MikeyCNY]

Open carry is the wave of the future. It is lawful, per Heller and McDonald, in every state of the Union, just as it has been since its inception. The ramifications of this as we go along are, eventually, are going to get settled at the Federal level, and the States will need to get in line on open carry.

BRB, going to Open Carry in NYS everywhere.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The only thing that you and your ilk are doing in this thread is obfuscating what the law states on these matters as prescribed by jurisprudence going back to the founding of this nation.

Peruta vs California is very likely to be denied Cert. by the Supreme Court, because States have both the authority and discretion to set the terms for concealed carry under Heller, which is where things stand as a matter of the law. Its possible that the "good cause" challenge in Peruta might be taken up by SCOTUS, and that Pertua could win his complaint on Due Process grounds.

However, he will not win on Second Amendment grounds, because the Court has already ruled that concealed carry is not the Right protected by the 2A.

This is why National Concealed Reciprocity is doomed. States will immediately sue over any such measure coming out of the US Congress in Federal court, and they're going to win on the merits. State do not have to recognize licenses from other States, and they will roll up the gun groups like the NRA in short order on perfectly solid legal grounds.

However, rather than talking about where the stands at this point, and the legal ramifications that pertain for all future cases dealing with the 2A, guys like you who have nothing to add to the legal discussion devolve these "discussions" into arguments about whether open carry is "tactical" or "preferred."

The only way the legal state of affairs is going to change is if Heller and McDonald are overturned.

So, carry on with your distractions and nonsense. I will note that you have actually not commented upon the law or the legal case in question in this thread at all.

Open carry is the wave of the future. It is lawful, per Heller and McDonald, in every state of the Union, just as it has been since its inception. The ramifications of this as we go along are, eventually, are going to get settled at the Federal level, and the States will need to get in line on open carry.

Ride the wave and enjoy your Rights, or sit on the beach bemoaning the rules for it and complaining that everyone is not doing it the way you want them to.

And guys like you divert from questions asked. You are no different from the last Forum.

Your M.O. is to post extremely lengthy paragraphs that have nothing to do with the questions you are asked and claim victory with a snide, low key insult here and there. My response to the tactical feasibility of open carry was due to someone's post who said that they didn't care if we were allowed one or the other. But yes, ignore that.

So I will ask the question again. Where are the massive protests in states like Texas where signs are popping up more and more in private businesses due to open carry?

It should be a simple answer without distractions and diversions buried in a lengthy paragraph.

 

[nortatoga]

And guys like you divert from questions asked. You are no different from the last Forum.

Your M.O. is to post extremely lengthy paragraphs that have nothing to do with the questions you are asked and claim victory with a snide, low key insult here and there. My response to the tactical feasibility of open carry was due to someone's post who said that they didn't care if we were allowed one or the other. But yes, ignore that.

So I will ask the question again. Where are the massive protests in states like Texas where signs are popping up more and more in private businesses due to open carry?

It should be a simple answer without distractions and diversions buried in a lengthy paragraph.

Protest something that is the Private Business Owners Right?

 

[John Stark]

BRB, going to Open Carry in NYS everywhere.

You would be arrested, we both know that, even with a concealed carry permit in your pocket.

The point here is not whether any practical effect of the law has been felt yet in any given state. The law is an ass, as the old saying goes, and these things take time to catch up.

The fact that any given State is in open defiance of Federal law is not germane, and has no bearing at all, on what the law actually states on this matter.

Some southern states said they were going to defy desegregation; that did not change what the law said about it.

Someone may defy the law and commit a murder; that does not change the fact that it is against the law to murder.

Etc.

Eventually, someone is going to challenge NY and the handful of other gun control states on this matter, and they're going to win on the merits, unless somehow Heller and McDonald are overturned.

This could be expedited by someone getting arrested for open carrying; criminal procedures have far more leeway with regards to getting their cases to SCOTUS and considered for judgment, in terms of discovery, holding the feet of prosecutors to the fire, and so on.

However, folks don't want to do that, and just like with UnSafe, everyone is going to wait around for some gun control group or another to file a suit that actually seeks redress against the Infringment that is going on. That is the long term route, and it likely won't see fruition for years to come.

The Feds could, in fact, on orders from AG Sessions, stick their nose into NY or CA and force the issue, just as happened with desegregation. Whether this happens remains to be seen, and a lot depends on whether the Republicans can ever get their act together on this very important civil Right.

We know that the Dems are never going to support gun rights, so we have only the troops to work with that are at our disposal.

 

[capitalcrew]

I'll start a legal fund and get myself arrested for OC, but ya'll better make it worth my while.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Protest something that is the Private Business Owners Right?

My point in all this is that some guys would rather have open instead of concealed carry or don't care if it's one or the other.

My response to that is that private businesses will ban the carrying of firearms in their private businesses if open is forced on the average citizen. Which is lawful for them to do so. There is no argument from me there.

Since these private businesses will be doing that and have been doing that, evidence points to gun owners just dealing with it and not boycotting or protesting it as evidenced in Texas in contrast to what Jon Snow says will happen.

Gun owners will just let it happen and still frequent these businesses with no help from liberal soccer moms or dads who stood behind Conservatives in the transgender protests about Target bathrooms.

 

[nortatoga]

My point in all this is that some guys would rather have open instead of concealed carry or don't care if it's one or the other.

My response to that is that private businesses will ban the carrying of firearms in their private businesses if open is forced on the average citizen. Which is lawful for them to do so. There is no argument from me there.

Since these private businesses will be doing that and have been doing that, evidence points to gun owners just dealing with it and not boycotting or protesting it as evidenced in Texas in contrast to what Jon Snow says will happen.

Gun owners will just let it happen and still frequent these businesses with no help from soccer moms and other libs who stood behind the transgender protests in Target bathrooms brought about by Conservatives.

Jon Snow Really!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Jon Snow Really!!

If we want to be factual, it should be Jon Targaryen and not Stark or Snow.

 

[nortatoga]

If we want to be factual, it should be Jon Targaryen and not Stark or Snow.

More likely Jaehaerys Targaryen

 

[John Stark]

And guys like you divert from questions asked. You are no different from the last Forum.

Your M.O. is to post extremely lengthy paragraphs that have nothing to do with the questions you are asked and claim victory with a snide, low key insult here and there. My response to the tactical feasibility of open carry was due to someone's post who said that they didn't care if we were allowed one or the other. But yes, ignore that.

So I will ask the question again. Where are the massive protests in states like Texas where signs are popping up more and more in private businesses due to open carry?

It should be a simple answer without distractions and diversions buried in a lengthy paragraph.

Your very first post in this thread was about how the States would only issue concealed permits to cops if open carry becomes mainstream, and how that is bad for carry in general. That is the same theme you have beat in every post of yours in this thread.

I have already provided the answer to the question vis-a-vis open carry and whether private businesses can tell the carriers of Arms to stay out of their establishment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is likely applicable to this practice by businesses, and might open them up to law suits in federal court.

However, there are several problems with this. First, since concealed carry is not the Right protected by the 2A, it might be ruled that businesses or other private groups (like clubs) cannot discriminate against open carriers. How would that stick in your craw?

This follows from the notion of housing; under Federal law, guns are NOT a reason to not rent or sell a home to a person. That goes for things like adopting children, and many other legal matters.

On the other hand, I do not like that portion of the Civil Rights Act for numerous reasons, as it is my view that it harms the Right to association, which is directly implied by the Right to Assemble in the First Amendment. Business owners ought to be allowed to do business with whom they desire. At the same time, my desire to remain true to the freedom to associate does not mean that I want people turned away from buying or renting a home, or adopting children. I don't claim to have all of the answers.

As to why there is not widespread protest concerning open carry, I'm wondering if you realize just how many states you can, in fact, open carry in one form or another. There are a lot of them. Even in Texas, where open carry without a permit is not allowed (it was not allowed prior to the recent passage of a bill there to allow it), they have always been able to openly carry rifles, and that law has not changed.

Up until Reagan as governor in California, open carry of a hand gun was allowed in a large part of the state. Reagan had it done away with in the face of riots and the black power groups that were arming up during his tenure as governor there.

Many states have always allowed the open carry of Arms, including hand guns, just as they have allowed the purchase of hand guns without a permit. The fact of the matter is that far more States have in the past, and still continue to recognize open carry and the Right to buy a hand gun without a permit than don't.

The bottom line here is that various State and governmental officials have been trying to change the gun culture in this nation for a long, long time. And they've succeeded. In most states open carry is not an issue, because its allowed or there are other, very easy and cheap options (concealed permits) to carry within the State laws before the 2A was finally clarified in Heller and McDonald.

I myself am perfectly fine with concealed carry, and I think we should amend the US Constitution so the Second Amendment reaffirms Constitutional Carry. Concealed carriers have proven, over and over again, that they are careful with their weapons.

That being said, why should I support concealed carry when guys like you want to tear down my Right to open carry, especially when the 2A has finally been clarified and cemented as the law with regards to the States.

Open carry is not being pushed by a large number of gun owners in many states, because they have it already in some form.

In other States, its not being pushed because people cling to their gun permits rather than to their Right, because that is the culture and mindset that they have embraced.

I'm more than open to seeing having something like "including concealed carry" added to the 2A, but with all due frankness and sincerity, I'm not sure why I should be open to that when the concealed carriers dump on the Right that is protected in the first place.

You don't think its tactical to open carry, as a personal defense matter. I don't think it strategic to allow hoplophobes to continue ginny up scare tactics and mongering against open carries.

The solution to that is to live and let live, rather than tear one another down for our preferred method of carry.

However, none of that is germane at all in terms of where the law stand on this matter at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with where we are all at with regards to the 2A and the laws concerning it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Your very first post in this thread was about how the States would only issue concealed permits to cops if open carry becomes mainstream, and how that is bad for carry in general. That is the same theme you have beat in every post of yours in this thread.

I have already provided the answer to the question vis-a-vis open carry and whether private businesses can tell the carriers of Arms to stay out of their establishment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is likely applicable to this practice by businesses, and might open them up to law suits in federal court.

However, there are several problems with this. First, since concealed carry is not the Right protected by the 2A, it might be ruled that businesses or other private groups (like clubs) cannot discriminate against open carriers. How would that stick in your craw?

This follows from the notion of housing; under Federal law, guns are NOT a reason to not rent or sell a home to a person. That goes for things like adopting children, and many other legal matters.

On the other hand, I do not like that portion of the Civil Rights Act for numerous reasons, as it is my view that it harms the Right to association, which is directly implied by the Right to Assemble in the First Amendment. Business owners ought to be allowed to do business with whom they desire. At the same time, my desire to remain true to the freedom to associate does not mean that I want people turned away from buying or renting a home, or adopting children. I don't claim to have all of the answers.

As to why there is not widespread protest concerning open carry, I'm wondering if you realize just how many states you can, in fact, open carry in one form or another. There are a lot of them. Even in Texas, where open carry without a permit is not allowed (it was not allowed prior to the recent passage of a bill there to allow it), they have always been able to openly carry rifles, and that law has not changed.

Up until Reagan as governor in California, open carry of a hand gun was allowed in a large part of the state. Reagan had it done away with in the face of riots and the black power groups that were arming up during his tenure as governor there.

Many states have always allowed the open carry of Arms, including hand guns, just as they have allowed the purchase of hand guns without a permit. The fact of the matter is that far more States have in the past, and still continue to recognize open carry and the Right to buy a hand gun without a permit than don't.

The bottom line here is that various State and governmental officials have been trying to change the gun culture in this nation for a long, long time. And they've succeeded. In most states open carry is not an issue, because its allowed or there are other, very easy and cheap options (concealed permits) to carry within the State laws before the 2A was finally clarified in Heller and McDonald.

I myself am perfectly fine with concealed carry, and I think we should amend the US Constitution so the Second Amendment reaffirms Constitutional Carry. Concealed carriers have proven, over and over again, that they are careful with their weapons.

That being said, why should I support concealed carry when guys like you want to tear down my Right to open carry, especially when the 2A has finally been clarified and cemented as the law with regards to the States.

Open carry is not being pushed by a large number of gun owners in many states, because they have it already in some form.

In other States, its not being pushed because people cling to their gun permits rather than to their Right, because that is the culture and mindset that they have embraced.

I'm more than open to seeing having something like "including concealed carry" added to the 2A, but with all due frankness and sincerity, I'm not sure why I should be open to that when the concealed carriers dump on the Right that is protected in the first place.

You don't think its tactical to open carry, as a personal defense matter. I don't think it strategic to allow hoplophobes to continue ginny up scare tactics and mongering against open carries.

The solution to that is to live and let live, rather than tear one another down for our preferred method of carry.

However, none of that is germane at all in terms of where the law stand on this matter at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with where we are all at with regards to the 2A and the laws concerning it.

I quit after the 4th paragraph. It's entirely too long. You need to work on that. Once again you are incorrect. It cannot become a civil rights issue against open carriers because they will just not allow the carrying of firearms in their business entirely.

He does that fit in your craw?

 

[MikeyCNY]

You would be arrested, we both know that, even with a concealed carry permit in your pocket.

The point here is not whether any practical effect of the law has been felt yet in any given state. The law is an ass, as the old saying goes, and these things take time to catch up.

I just wanted to pop in and say thank you for participating in the discussion here.. I know some people may not like/agree with you, but you definitely put some thought into your statements and you seem to know what you're talking about. I get so fed up with the BS laws we put up with in NYS that it is easy to forget that some people really are trying to help us.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I quit after the 4th paragraph. It's entirely too long. You need to work on that.

I'm with willjr75 on this point! Geez, this thread has turned into a fuckin nightmare,- you say, I say, No, he says, - enough!

Fuck it, we're all here because we are gun owners and we hate seeing our rights trampled on. I just want the abuse against gun owners to stop, and for me to be able to defend myself, and not be discriminated against.

 

[John Stark]

I quit after the 4th paragraph. It's entirely too long. You need to work on that. Once again you are incorrect. It cannot become a civil rights issue against open carriers because they will just not allow the carrying of firearms in their business entirely.

He does that fit in your craw?

Of course you quit reading, because that would requite you to actually educate yourself by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on how that is applicable to businesses, clubs, and all other private associations, and then to actually read Heller And McDonald to consider how those decisions would, or might, interact with with the Civil Rights Act.

According to Federal law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service to anyone except on very narrow grounds, and SCOTUS has previously upheld that.

Heller, McDonald, and the Civil Rights Act have pages and pages and pages of paragraphs, but you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs on a gun forum that deal with our Rights in an honest fashion when someone who has actually read these laws has.

Its possible that my view on where this is all heading in terms of the law and the politics is wrong, especially if Heller ever gets overturned (possible, but not probable IMO).

However, you haven't made a single post in this thread to actually talk about these facts.

Maybe the NRA will file suit to save your privilege to carry concealed in a business or other private venue, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on it.

 

[John Stark]

I just wanted to pop in and say thank you for participating in the discussion here.. I know some people may not like/agree with you, but you definitely put some thought into your statements and you seem to know what you're talking about. I get so fed up with the BS laws we put up with in NYS that it is easy to forget that some people really are trying to help us.

I wish I could actually help in a real and tangible way. I am not a lawyer, nor rich, nor connected. If I was, I'd be raising legal and political hell in this country.

Thanks very much for your kind words, even if you don't agree with my some or all of my analysis.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Of course you quit reading, because that would requite you to actually educate yourself...

If that is what you think or what makes you feel better saying then fine.

Your posts are still too damned long. There are ways to get your point across without droning on and throwing in a low key insult here and there. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks so.

 

[stuck in ny]

Maybe because casinos are private businesses that launder money for organized crime? Maybe because Nevada is an almost wholly owned-subsidiary of the Feds, where 85% of the land the federal government controls in that state? Maybe because the rest of the state is almost completely controlled in terms of politics and the law by Las Vegas interests, just like NY is now almost completely controlled by the laws and politics of Albany and NY City? Maybe because the politicians who represent Nevada at the State and Federal level are slimy, mob connected robots who get the crap beat out of them for not following orders, like Harry Reid?

That is exactly the reason why gun control groups, like the one run by Giffords and her odious husband, are targeting Nevada for "universal background checks" and other infringements: because it is low-hanging fruit where the government is run by people like Cuomo, who himself has long-standing mob ties (as do the Clintons).

So your example of where open carry doesn't work are businesses in a city and state where the rich and famous, and the politicians and corruptocrats, frolic? The people of Nevada who are not part of the crony system there have far less control of their state than even upstate NY does in the face of NY City and Albany.

I get that perhaps people might not actually follow politics in other states, but if you're going to offer ridiculous rhetorical questions to a "problem" that you've invented in your head, at least offer some credible examples that are not founded on complete ignorance of the political and legal realities in any given state when you do so.



Talk about fake news! That is an "article" from a website that is run by a NRA hack, an organization that not only refuses to accept the Heller decision and the legal weight of it, but has been part and parcel on every single compromise of gun rights in the United States at the Federal level going back to the NFA of 1934. The article then proceeds to "detail" the "problem" by referring to posts made by members, who make "claims."

The NRA compromised on machine guns and everything else in the NFA at the time, contributing to the rise of ATF and the 200 tax and permit scheme to own an automatic weapon, SBRs, and so on. The NRA compromised when the NFA was struck down by SCOTUS and replaced with the Gun Control Act of '68. The NRA compromised on the FOPA bill under Reagan that outlawed the sale of new machineguns, except, of course, to law enforcement and the military, among other things in FOPA. The NRA compromised on the Brady Bill under Clinton, as well as the AWB of '94.

Every time there has been gun control, the NRA has been right there behind the wings, crafting the compromise legislation.

Have you verified those claims? How much time to do you spend in Texas? How many people do you know in Texas that are telling you about this "problem?" Do you have a CCW in Texas, and have you ever been denied service in any establishment there for carrying either openly or concealed?

Businesses have always had the right in Texas to put those signs up, but suddenly its a problem only because of open carry? It couldn't possibly be because the mega-corps are all liberal bastions of wealth that have an undue influence in politics, the law, and finance?

Dick's in NY pulled all ARs off the shelves, even when they weren't required to do so, because people buy ARs? Walmart has been pulling guns out of their stores across the nation, even in states where gun sales are booming, because people open carry, or like ARs?

The plain fact of the matter is that businesses all over the country have been putting those signs up and participating as gate keepers for gun control more and more, even where open carry of hand guns is outright banned.

Correlation is not causation, and the answer to businesses that are anti-American is to stop buying their crap.

For the low-information voters out there, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, has stated repeatedly that if the Texas legislature sends him a bill that would allow carry of Arms without a permit, he'll sign it.

The largest impediment to get that bill on his desk, oddly enough (!), are the cop associations and their lackeys in the legislature who take the lobbying money from those cop associations for their reelections.

Texas will very likely go Constitutional Carry during Abbot's tenure, and that in large part will be due to the political activists in the gun community there, both concealed and open carriers.

If enough businesses there put up signs that say "no carry," those businesses will suffer. Texas is not filled with liars, back biters, and do-nothings like NY is.

The NRA is a bunch of rino-tards who have totally given up on the coasts. They are c*cksurvatives who statch defeat from out of the jaws of victory.

 

[John Stark]

If that is what you think or what makes you feel better saying then fine.

Your posts are still too damned long. There are ways to get your point across without droning on and throwing in a low key insult here and there. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks so.

It has nothing at all to do with making myself feel better about anything, it has everything to do with facts that are in evidence as a matter of law.

I have made very relevant points, in layman's terms, with regards to the legal and political consequences of Heller and McDonald, as well as the Civil Right Act. I could expand those points in much greater detail(!), citing relevant cases and laws.

I have admitted that I could be wrong in my interpretation of those decisions and laws. I have attempted to be honest and open in my views, and have put my cards on the table. I don't buckle under pressure and admit that I'm wrong or off-track just because someone says that I am, but I am amenable in my views when proven or at least demonstrated to me how they are wrong or could be.

Stating that you don't like open carry because McDonald's might refuse you a big mac means jack in any court of law (State or Federal) when you want the government to allow you to carry there, whether carrying openly or concealed.

So, dispute my claims on the grounds that they were made: the law and how things stand legally/politically at the present moment, and offer another analysis of how Peruta vs. California, or any other gun case in the dock, is going to play out in light of Heller. Make a freaking point already.

 

[Blimey]

Would definitely be a big case and if supported it would give further credence not just to CC but to the 2nd, by intertwining them.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It has nothing at all to do with making myself feel better about anything, it has everything to do with facts that are in evidence as a matter of law.

I have made very relevant points, in layman's terms, with regards to the legal and political consequences of Heller and McDonald, as well as the Civil Right Act. I could expand those points in much greater detail(!), citing relevant cases and laws.

I have admitted that I could be wrong in my interpretation of those decisions and laws. I have attempted to be honest and open in my views, and have put my cards on the table. I don't buckle under pressure and admit that I'm wrong or off-track just because someone says that I am, but I am amenable in my views when proven or at least demonstrated to me how they are wrong or could be.

Stating that you don't like open carry because McDonald's might refuse you a big mac means jack in any court of law (State or Federal) when you want the government to allow you to carry there, whether carrying openly or concealed.

So, dispute my claims on the grounds that they were made: the law and how things stand legally/politically at the present moment, and offer another analysis of how Peruta vs. California, or any other gun case in the dock, is going to play out in light of Heller. Make a freaking point already.

 

[fartgamer]

Nothing will help NY.

 

[JosERW]

Nothing will help NY.

They're already looking at unsafe 2.0

Most popular firearms and mags: BANNED
Carry: Mostly BANNED
Ammunition: Once the registry is up costs will triple amounting to a BAN
NFA items: BANNED
Touching a handgun without permission: FELONY

Unless SCOTUS fixes ALL of these wrongs, maybe with exception to the NFA items, the Second Amendment will continue to die a slow death in NY. The unsafe act was the death blow. In NY, the 2A is basically frozen in time and we will never get to enjoy any real innovations in the firearm market resulting in shooting sports essentially ending in this state.

 

[swilliams]

I appreciate that John's argument is based on precedent in the courts, and by appreciate, I mean that I'm capable of understanding where he's deriving his argument. I understand that it's factual and legal. I'm with Willjr on this one, though. Just because the courts have ruled in the past that open carry is what's protected by the 2nd amendment, doesn't make that the best decision, particularly in the times we're living in. Open carry will backfire.

Last point, for all of you men out there who think open carry is no big deal. As a woman, open carry is more than just a 'tactical' decision. Women are already preyed upon more than men. The elderly are more open to attack than someone who looks like they might be military, or a biker, or a construction worker. There are minorities who would be extremely reluctant to open carry, given the current social issues. By continuing to promote the idea that open carry is the ONLY carry, you are doing a huge disservice to those of us who are most at risk of being seen as easy targets. It's fine if YOU want to be an originalist, but that ignores the reality of today's world.

Please don't quote law to me in response. I get it. Just want to maybe make some people consider this issue from a different perspective. We could go back to the idea that arms are protected because we need them for protection of the state (against a tyrannical government), rather than personal protection, if you want to discuss original meaning.

 

[spat]

I appreciate that John's argument is based on precedent in the courts, and by appreciate, I mean that I'm capable of understanding where he's deriving his argument. I understand that it's factual and legal. I'm with Willjr on this one, though. Just because the courts have ruled in the past that open carry is what's protected by the 2nd amendment, doesn't make that the best decision, particularly in the times we're living in. Open carry will backfire.

Last point, for all of you men out there who think open carry is no big deal. As a woman, open carry is more than just a 'tactical' decision. Women are already preyed upon more than men. The elderly are more open to attack than someone who looks like they might be military, or a biker, or a construction worker. There are minorities who would be extremely reluctant to open carry, given the current social issues. By continuing to promote the idea that open carry is the ONLY carry, you are doing a huge disservice to those of us who are most at risk of being seen as easy targets. It's fine if YOU want to be an originalist, but that ignores the reality of today's world.

Please don't quote law to me in response. I get it. Just want to maybe make some people consider this issue from a different perspective. We could go back to the idea that arms are protected because we need them for protection of the state (against a tyrannical government), rather than personal protection, if you want to discuss original meaning.

While concealed carry is preferred, and I would personally like a ruling that it was a constitutionally protected right, I cannot with certainty say that it is protected by the constitution.

Carry in some form is plainly protected, what else could bear arms possibly mean, but whether an argument that open carry is sufficient to satisfy that is valid or not, I'm not sure.

It does sound an awful lot like the "you can have a flintlock, so you can have arms, so you don't need anything more" argument though.

Quite frankly, the constitution says what it says, and whether there is a better idea or not is irrelevant. Arguing about how much better concealed is or how much more you need it is also irrelevant for the same reason.


OTOH, I do believe that a ruling protecting open carry is all that we really need to regain our rights. If the gun grabbers are forced to allow open carry they will voluntarily allow concealed, and will in fact beg you to conceal instead of open carrying.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I appreciate that John's argument is based on precedent in the courts, and by appreciate, I mean that I'm capable of understanding where he's deriving his argument. I understand that it's factual and legal. I'm with Willjr on this one, though. Just because the courts have ruled in the past that open carry is what's protected by the 2nd amendment, doesn't make that the best decision, particularly in the times we're living in. Open carry will backfire.

Last point, for all of you men out there who think open carry is no big deal. As a woman, open carry is more than just a 'tactical' decision. Women are already preyed upon more than men. The elderly are more open to attack than someone who looks like they might be military, or a biker, or a construction worker. There are minorities who would be extremely reluctant to open carry, given the current social issues. By continuing to promote the idea that open carry is the ONLY carry, you are doing a huge disservice to those of us who are most at risk of being seen as easy targets. It's fine if YOU want to be an originalist, but that ignores the reality of today's world.

Please don't quote law to me in response. I get it. Just want to maybe make some people consider this issue from a different perspective. We could go back to the idea that arms are protected because we need them for protection of the state (against a tyrannical government), rather than personal protection, if you want to discuss original meaning.

I never even considered that. Now I have more ammunition to the argument.

It is very valid that someone like say a guy or gal confined to a wheelchair would now open him or herself to theft of the gun by only being allowed to open carry. Or a guy or gal in crutches or an elderly person with a cane.

Then you have dress that doesn't allow open carry. So now a woman wearing a gown to an event cannot protect herself. How ridiculous would I look wearing a suit and tie trying to open carry. Will I have to tailor my suit to have a cutout for my pistol? Or would I have to wear a shoulder holster over the jacket? If I want to go dancing at a night club, do I now have to forego personal protection?

How about if it's cold outside and I'm wearing a snow bib, snow jacket, and a ski mask? How will I open carry then? I wouldn't be able to wear my ski mask and approach an ATM being already used by someone. During Halloween if I dress up in costume, now I have to pick a costume that's a Disney character rather then Jason from Friday the 13th.

It's ridiculous to just want open carry.