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

[spat]

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? 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.

Nobody *just* wants open carry, but if you are guaranteed open carry, you *will* not just be allowed, but will be encouraged to conceal.

In practice a ruling forcing them to allow open carry will get us concealed as well in the bargain.

 

[Marine Cpl]

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.

As I said before in a previous post, I disagree. You can make open carry almost non-existent if you cannot carry into any, store, restaurant, workplace, ect.

You'd only be able to open carry from your home to your car and in your car. If I was a gun grabber politician and wanted to stop people from carrying but could only ban one or the other, I'd pick open carry as the only method of carry. Then I'd pass laws to make signs force of law. You'd see almost no one carrying then.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Nobody *just* wants open carry, but if you are guaranteed open carry, you *will* not just be allowed, but will be encouraged to conceal.

In practice a ruling forcing them to allow open carry will get us concealed as well in the bargain.

There are some who do. That's who I'm replying to.

 

[spat]

As I said before in a previous post, I disagree. You can make open carry almost non-existent if you cannot carry into any, store, restaurant, workplace, ect.

You'd only be able to open carry from your home to your car and in your car. If I was a gun grabber politician and wanted to stop people from carrying but could ban one or the other, I'd pick open carry as the only method of carry. Then I'd pass laws to make signs force of law. You'd see almost no one carrying then.

If you are guaranteed open carry, then those laws would be struck down as well and we would be back to private parties could ask you to leave, but that's all, and they could even be sued for discrimination (you can't ask someone to leave your business just for being black, or wearing a Trump t-shirt for instance).

Most large employers already prohibit weapons, so nothing would change there (except for people who ignore theit employer's policy under the "concealed is concealed" doctrine).

 

[FrankenCub]

It's a razor no matter how you look at it. Sure thing, make it concealed carry only, but will it be law considered for handguns only? What about protection of long guns? Will they demand that open carry of long guns is illegal and therefore any time someone is seen carrying an AR will be arrested.
We need strict protection for ALL of our guns, mode of carry NEEDS to be of the discretion of the owner. Antis will find a way to go after everything they see as easy prey.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If you are guaranteed open carry, then those laws would be struck down as well and we would be back to private parties could ask you to leave, but that's all, and they could even be sued for discrimination (you can't ask someone to leave your business just for being black, or wearing a Trump t-shirt for instance).

Most large employers already prohibit weapons, so nothing would change there (except for people who ignore theit employer's policy under the "concealed is concealed" doctrine).

You cannot dictate what a private business does as far as discrimination.

But it is now illegal to "conceal is concealed" where previously it wasn't in your employment.

Basically, you'd see much more illegal concealed carry.

 

[spat]

You cannot dictate what a private business does as far as discrimination.

But it is now illegal to "conceal is concealed" where previously it wasn't in your employment.

Basically, you'd see much more illegal concealed carry.

Try putting up a "we don't make wedding cakes with 2 grooms on top" sign up if you think a private business can do what it wants.....

It's not right, but if they are going to play that game.....

 

[VietnamEraVet]

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.

Then I suppose we'll all be carrying like this:

 

[Marine Cpl]

Then I suppose we'll all be carrying like this:

View attachment 12768

Will you be able to draw at that angle? The beaver tail will be right on your chest and the muzzle would be pointed straight out in front of you.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Will you be able to draw at that angle? The beaver tail will be right on your chest and the muzzle would be pointed straight out in front of you.

Who really knows? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Could you imagine if we all end up having to carry in this or a similar manner?

Hell, think of how ridiculous things could get. Wearing a rig over your clothes, whether they be a shirt, suit coat, winter coat, or a woman wearing a dress...

 

[Marine Cpl]

Who really knows? I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. Could you imagine if we all end up having to carry in this or a similar manner?

Hell, think of how ridiculous things could get. Wearing a rig over your clothes, whether they be a shirt, suit coat, winter coat, or a woman wearing a dress...

That was my point. I have no problem with choice. Just not open only.

Not sure if you caught the joke about being able to draw?

 

[VietnamEraVet]

That was my point. I have no problem with choice. Just not open only.

Not sure if you caught the joke about being able to draw?

Nope, missed it. Sorry.

One other open carry method also comes to mind. I have a picture of my dad (he was a Navigator on a B-29 and flew 25 missions over Japan) where he had some kind of chest rig that placed his gun right above his heart and near his shoulder with the muzzle pointed at about 2 o'clock. He could just place his hand like he was pledging allegiance, and draw.

I found it interesting, and regret that I never got around to asking him about it when he was alive. I wonder if anyone else out there is familiar with that type of rig?

 

[Marine Cpl]

The joke was that with that holster you posted, a guy with a big belly wouldn't be able to draw because the gun would rest on top of the stomach and be parallel to the ground with the muzzle pointed straight in front of you instead of down to the ground.

Picture that holster on this guy. He'd never be able to draw. Lol!

 

[VietnamEraVet]

The joke was that with that holster you posted, a guy with a big belly wouldn't be able to draw because the gun would rest on top of the stomach and be parallel to the ground with the muzzle pointed straight in front of you instead of down to the ground.

Picture that holster on this guy. He'd never be able to draw. Lol!

Got it! But the guy in the pic has his own advantages,... like being able to hold his food plate handsfree while he is in his recliner...!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Open carry only would also be the end of the manufacturer of subcompact pistols like the Ruger LCP if it went national.

 

[spat]

Open carry only would also be the end of the manufacturer of subcompact pistols like the Ruger LCP if it went national.

It wouldn't eliminate concealed carry for God sakes.

Open carry is already the law of the land in most of the country. Concealed is allowed even more places (with some paperwork at least), even without them having the feds forcing them to do it. Why do you think that would suddenly change just because CA, NY and a couple others were forced to get with the program ?

 

[Darth]

The joke was that with that holster you posted, a guy with a big belly wouldn't be able to draw because the gun would rest on top of the stomach and be parallel to the ground with the muzzle pointed straight in front of you instead of down to the ground.

Picture that holster on this guy. He'd never be able to draw. Lol!

Nobody has tagged me in this thread yet because...????



????





Y'all b trippin.

But honestly, his navel looks like a slit to slip something else in. (Like a coin. Or a finger. Or a small derringer. Or a credit card. Or my penis. Or a leaf. Or a flash drive. Or a folded-up dollar. Or a house key. Or a AA battery. Etc.)

You know how it goes.

 

[swilliams]

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.

You make some good points. On the bold; as much as I'd like to think that, I'm not convinced that's what would happen. Too cynical, I guess. Comes from having been a NY'er where legislators can limit you to seven rounds and judges can use Mother Jones as a legal source.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@spat , what do you say to this? If forced, you don't think NY will make signs the force of law?

“We have lost more than we gained,” he added. “I have had my CHL 20 years this year and I hardly ran into any legal signs back then. This has woken up the anti-crowd in a big way. So now the genie is out of the bottle and I don’t see a way to put it back.”

Is Open Carry Backfiring on Texas Gun Owners?

In my opinion, rather then just give anyone that wants a concealed carry permit like you say they will, they will just keep things as they are with may issue, and pass laws were signs are the force of law. If it is happening in pro-gun Texas where signs are popping up everywhere making it impossible to carry both open and concealed, what makes you think it won't happen here in anti-gun NY?

 

[spat]

@spat , what do you say to this? If forced, you don't think NY will make signs the force of law?

“We have lost more than we gained,” he added. “I have had my CHL 20 years this year and I hardly ran into any legal signs back then. This has woken up the anti-crowd in a big way. So now the genie is out of the bottle and I don’t see a way to put it back.”

Is Open Carry Backfiring on Texas Gun Owners?

In my opinion, rather then just give anyone that wants a concealed carry permit like you say they will, they will just keep things as they are with may issue, and pass laws were signs are the force of law. If it is happening in pro-gun Texas where signs are popping up everywhere making it impossible to carry both open and concealed, what makes you think it won't happen here in anti-gun NY?

Right now they can, for all intents and purposes, prohibit whatever they want. Why do you think its going to get any worse if the feds suddenly put limits on that ?

 

[dsdmmat]

As I said before in a previous post, I disagree. You can make open carry almost non-existent if you cannot carry into any, store, restaurant, workplace, ect.

You'd only be able to open carry from your home to your car and in your car. If I was a gun grabber politician and wanted to stop people from carrying but could only ban one or the other, I'd pick open carry as the only method of carry. Then I'd pass laws to make signs force of law. You'd see almost no one carrying then.

you would see economics at work. Kmart in Sierra Vista, AZ tried that in 1994. They almost went out of business inside of two weeks. They fired the anti gun manager and went back to welcoming everyone that open carried again. The competition will take advantage of the stupid.

 

[NY Leatherneck]

The joke was that with that holster you posted, a guy with a big belly wouldn't be able to draw because the gun would rest on top of the stomach and be parallel to the ground with the muzzle pointed straight in front of you instead of down to the ground.

Picture that holster on this guy. He'd never be able to draw. Lol!

Anybody got a pin I could borrow?

 

[Marine Cpl]

you would see economics at work. Kmart in Sierra Vista, AZ tried that in 1494. They almost went out of business inside of two weeks. They fired the anti gun manager and went back to welcoming everyone that open carried again. The competition will take advantage of the stupid.

Funny. Not so in present day Texas.

 

[nortatoga]

@spat , what do you say to this? If forced, you don't think NY will make signs the force of law?

“We have lost more than we gained,” he added. “I have had my CHL 20 years this year and I hardly ran into any legal signs back then. This has woken up the anti-crowd in a big way. So now the genie is out of the bottle and I don’t see a way to put it back.”

Is Open Carry Backfiring on Texas Gun Owners?

In my opinion, rather then just give anyone that wants a concealed carry permit like you say they will, they will just keep things as they are with may issue, and pass laws were signs are the force of law. If it is happening in pro-gun Texas where signs are popping up everywhere making it impossible to carry both open and concealed, what makes you think it won't happen here in anti-gun NY?

What happened to *Concealed is Concealed* we hear so much?

 

[Marine Cpl]

What happened to *Concealed is Concealed* we hear so much?

That works when signs have no force of law or restricted permits have no force of law.

 

[dsdmmat]

Funny. Not so in present day Texas.

State wide maybe, in the little towns that you are not hearing about, I bet there are places just like the Kmart in Sierra Vista dealing with this quietly. It will take a little time to impact the economics state wide but, they will get there.
The difference is AZ was always an open carry state so, the economic boycott was very painful very quickly.

 

[spat]

That works when signs have no force of law or restricted permits have no force of law.

Depends a bit on what the law is too.

Many places ignoring the sign is only a violation, or something along those lines.

It comes down (as always) to risk vs reward. What is the risk of getting caught with the gun where you aren't supposed to have it, vs the risk of getting caught without it when you need it, factor in the penalties you will face and the odds you will face them, it really is math, not emotion.

Where I work there is free parking right in front of the building for most of my shift. But I frequently stay late, and occasionally get a ticket. However it doesn't happen very often, and the cost of the tickets, on average, is less than paying for parking.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Right now they can, for all intents and purposes, prohibit whatever they want. Why do you think its going to get any worse if the feds suddenly put limits on that ?

If the courts force open carry on states, it would be a double edged sword. Sort of like a "Be careful what you wish for."

Now picture this. It is forced on NY to allow open carry. Cuomo has a fit. He has two choices. Make NY "Shall Issue" where it will increase the amount of guns in public (which he does not want!) while still having people like @dsdmmat open carrying anyway which wouldn't remedy the problem or passing laws where signs have the force of law.

If he does the force of law sign thing, now if businesses put up the signs, @dsdmmat will not be able to carry open or concealed in those businesses and other private areas that put up these signs.

Places like Westchester, Long Island, and other northern counties that don't issue full carry permits because they don't want their residents to carry concealed will now have no reason to issue restricted concealed carry permits. So now people who normally ignore restrictions like many here on this forum do, will now have no legal method of concealed carry.

NY is anti-gun. Many businesses will put up these signs because they do not want guns in their fat liberal faces. You can boycott some, but not all. When UPS stores and FedEx stores have these signs up, you'd have to drive many miles to find one that doesn't have a sign just to mail a damned 5 dollar package or carry concealed illegally so as not to drive 40 miles out of the way to drop a package off before going to work.

That's just one example of a business. Now Home Depot and Lowe's does the same thing. Now what? Go to the mom and pop that doesn't have what you need? It'll be a major inconvenience.

I see where you get the whole discrimination thing coming from the gay wedding cakes but let's be real here. Anti-gun courts aren't going to consider a business that puts up a lawful sign discrimination. It'll be many years if it made it all the way to SCOTUS and even then that is a crapshoot. It isn't happening in Texas now.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Depends a bit on what the law is too.

Many places ignoring the sign is only a violation, or something along those lines.

It comes down (as always) to risk vs reward. What is the risk of getting caught with the gun where you aren't supposed to have it, vs the risk of getting caught without it when you need it, factor in the penalties you will face and the odds you will face them, it really is math, not emotion.

Where I work there is free parking right in front of the building for most of my shift. But I frequently stay late, and occasionally get a ticket. However it doesn't happen very often, and the cost of the tickets, on average, is less than paying for parking.

That works for you. Not all. Some aren't willing to take that risk and will be infringed upon.

 

[spat]

If the courts force open carry on states, it would be a double edged sword. Sort of like a "Be careful what you wish for."

Now picture this. It is forced on NY to allow open carry. Cuomo has a fit. He has two choices. Make NY "Shall Issue" where it will increase the amount of guns in public (which he does not want!) while still having people like @dsdmmat open carrying anyway which wouldn't remedy the problem or passing laws where signs have the force of law.

If he does the force of law sign thing, now if businesses put up the signs, @dsdmmat will not be able to carry open or concealed in those businesses and other private areas that put up these signs.

Places like Westchester, Long Island, and other northern counties that don't issue full carry permits because they don't want their residents to carry concealed will now have no reason to issue restricted concealed carry permits. So now people who normally ignore restrictions like many here on this forum do, will now have no legal method of concealed carry.

NY is anti-gun. Many businesses will put up these signs because they do not want guns in their fat liberal faces. You can boycott some, but not all. When UPS stores and FedEx stores have these signs up, you'd have to drive many miles to find one that doesn't have a sign just to mail a damned 5 dollar package or carry concealed illegally so as not to drive 40 miles out of the way to drop a package off before going to work.

That's just one example of a business. Now Home Depot and Lowe's does the same thing. Now what? Go to the mom and pop that doesn't have what you need? It'll be a major inconvenience.

I see where you get the whole discrimination thing coming from the gay wedding cakes but let's be real here. Anti-gun courts aren't going to consider a business that puts up a lawful sign discrimination. It'll be many years if it made it all the way to SCOTUS and even then that is a crapshoot. It isn't happening in Texas now.

No discrimination cases because nobody has filed one. Can't blame anyone for that but us gun owners.

You could be right, I just don't think so.