Federal court rules that 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home

[ichy]

I live in Maryland and am thrilled to see this. Our current gun laws are an abysmal failure. Law abiding citizens can't get a CCW permit but armed hoodlums are all over the place in Baltimore.

 

[modestninja]

I just dont understand the apprehension of firearm some people have. If I want to I can kill someone just as easy with a sharpened pencil.

Yeah, did you hear about last week where that guy in Ohio went around his school stabbing people with a sharpened pencil? Last I heard he killed two people and injured two more. I mean it is definitely just as easy to kill someone with a pencil as an glock.... except that you have to get really close and hit them in just the right place with a lot of force rather than point a gun a pull a trigger.

There are plenty of reasons to support guns that are at least somewhat valid but essentially saying that a sharpened pencil is just as dangerous is silly.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yep, I'm sure gun ownership was really relevant in 1776... The world has moved on, come join us.

Show me a nation without gun violence.

 

[davmat787]

Someone needs to DDoS attack those guys.

Given the amount of guns in the US, and ease of access to them, aren't you surprised by how relatively little gun violence there is?

 

[Munky]

:thumbsup:

 

[soundforbjt]

Keep and bear arms. Courts and the supreme court have ruled that is an individual incorporated right.

Concealed carry is not the same as bearing arms. If you bear arms, I can see them.

The key word is "concealed".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I just dont understand the apprehension of firearm some people have. If I want to I can kill someone just as easy with a sharpened pencil.

I'm in favor of concealed carry being allowed, because I believe that responsible gun owners who are actually getting permits to allow them to carry in public are also responsible enough to handle a firearm in an appropriate and reasonable manner. The argument that "a sharpened pencil is as dangerous as a gun"? That's absurd and it makes proponents of concealed carry look like whack-a-doodles. Tell you what, let's have a duel tomorrow. 10 paces, turn, attack. I have a handgun and a pencil. Which would you rather take?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Concealed carry is not the same as bearing arms. If you bear arms, I can see them.

The key word is "concealed".

Are you confusing "bear" with "bare?" You can bear something without it being visible.

 

[QuantumPion]

I live in Maryland and am thrilled to see this. Our current gun laws are an abysmal failure. Law abiding citizens can't get a CCW permit but armed hoodlums are all over the place in Baltimore.

How much money did MD waste on that ballistics identification system? How many criminals have they caught using it?

 

[Tom]

Everyone's a responsible gun owner til someone gets shot.

I guess if I don't want anyone toting a concealed gun in my house I have to shoot everyone on the porch ?

 

[Jhhnn]

As long as none of the five justices that gave us the Heller ruling retire/die by the time a case like this makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see that happening.

The issues in Heller & CCW are different, but related. There's no reason to think what you say is true, other than wishful thinking.

It's important to remember that when the Constitution was written that the most advanced firearms were rifled bore black powder flintlocks, and that open carry was the usual method. The percussion cap hadn't even been invented, let alone breech loaders & brass cartridges.

I have no objection to the open carry of flintlocks by citizens, at all...

 

[gevorg]

We need guns in case you guys decide to try to collect the taxes we haven't been paying you for the last 236 years :whiste:

:biggrin:

 

[Fern]

Concealed carry is not the same as bearing arms. If you bear arms, I can see them.

The key word is "concealed".

Isn't that just a question of where you're 'bearing' it?

If the courts are going to permit people to carry a gun, do you really want it in plain sight? Isn't that going to make those afraid of guns more uncomfortable?

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Isn't that just a question of where you're 'bearing' it?

If the courts are going to permit people to carry a gun, do you really want it in plain sight? Isn't that going to make those afraid of guns more uncomfortable?

Fern

Myself, I'd rather know who is carrying. Pretty hard to conceal a musket when the amendment was written. Not to mention the powder horn and ball pouch.

 

[HumblePie]

Isn't that just a question of where you're 'bearing' it?

If the courts are going to permit people to carry a gun, do you really want it in plain sight? Isn't that going to make those afraid of guns more uncomfortable?

Fern

Pretty much.

I think the idea of concealed is stupid for requiring a permit as that is an abridgement upon a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. But that is my opinion. While I think it is great that people who own guns also take gun ownership courses to be better gun owners, I do not believe that should be a requirement either. It is the same thing as parenting. Being a parent is something that every American citizen can do. I think it would be great if every parent could take courses along with yearly refreshers to become better parents. Our society as a whole would benefit. But requiring people to take those courses to be a parent is not something I agree with.

One can incentivize doing those actions, but one can not be punitive for failure to do those actions against a Constitutional right. For example, the government can do a rebate on the sale of fire arms for those would be gun owners who are about the buy if they take a course in gun ownership first. There could be similar yearly incentives for taking refresher courses. Having responsible gun owners in our society is a benefit to the entire society and thus should be incentivized to make the citizenry do those actions.

The whole idea of concealed carry permits is retarded. Do you think a criminal using a gun is going to care about not having a concealed permit as he's toting around his heat? I don't think so. Why make it more difficult for the good gun owner to do the same to defend his or herself and others?

 

[HumblePie]

Myself, I'd rather know who is carrying. Pretty hard to conceal a musket when the amendment was written. Not to mention the powder horn and ball pouch.

Why do you need to know who's carrying? If I got a concealed permit and am carrying a gun, you would NEVER know unless I have cause to use my gun. In which case you'd be damn glad I had my gun on me at that time as it may have been used in your defense of life.

You are NOT going to EVER know if a criminal is carrying a gun. Ever. They are not going to be flashing their gun as they walk down the street if they are criminals. That excuse is a very poor one.

 

[Fern]

Myself, I'd rather know who is carrying. Pretty hard to conceal a musket when the amendment was written. Not to mention the powder horn and ball pouch.

Handguns were around then, even some that could fire multiple rounds before reloading was required.

And not only would be hard to conceal a long arm like a musket, it would be illegal. I do not believe it is permissible under the law anywhere to conceal a long arm.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Come to Iowa sometime if you are worried about concealed carry. Here, a permit to carry weapons means you can carry open or concealed. Also, its not just a firearms permit, its a weapons permit.

You should see the looks I get walking around with my P89 in one holster, XD-40 in another, Remington 870 tactical across one shoulder and a katana across the other. People still tend to worry about Gerber LMF 2 and an XD-40 subcompact that I am carrying concealed. :whiste:

Still all legal here with my permit to carry!
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Fern]

Myself, I'd rather know who is carrying.
-snip-

What makes you think you have a right to know what I'm carrying around with me?

Don't have a right to privacy? If I do, how does the fact that the 'thing' is a handgun override my right to privacy?

Fern

 

[monovillage]

The issues in Heller & CCW are different, but related. There's no reason to think what you say is true, other than wishful thinking.

It's important to remember that when the Constitution was written that the most advanced firearms were rifled bore black powder flintlocks, and that open carry was the usual method. The percussion cap hadn't even been invented, let alone breech loaders & brass cartridges.

I have no objection to the open carry of flintlocks by citizens, at all...

You probably don't think the 1st Amendment applies to radio, television, telephones and the internet or the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to telephone or electronic surveillance either.
Derp Derp

 

[soundforbjt]

Handguns were around then, even some that could fire multiple rounds before reloading was required.

And not only would be hard to conceal a long arm like a musket, it would be illegal. I do not believe it is permissible under the law anywhere to conceal a long arm.

Fern

Prior to the 19th century, all handguns were single-shot muzzleloaders.

 

[MotF Bane]

" A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory,"

Oh damn, that is huge. It'll take an appeal to SCOTUS, and upheld, then a bunch of legal challenges all over the country, to take care of those backwards states like MA, CA, IL, et cetera.

 

[HumblePie]

Prior to the 19th century, all handguns were single-shot muzzleloaders.

Umm, and your point of contention is?

Let us see. Where there hand guns available at the time of the writing of the Constitution? Yes.

Where those handguns capable of killing a person? Yes.

Where those handguns capable of being concealed? Yes.


I fail to see your point of contention. Handguns where around at that time. They were deadly back then. They were concealable back then. Did our fore fathers realize that technology changes over time? Where they not in an industrial age during a bunch of mass changes to various industries? Could they not foresee changes to gun technology to allow them to being better as if that wasn't already done in their lifetime?

As for your other point, "not until the 19th century." Wow, that was only a few decades later. Most of those that wrote the Constitution were still alive if I recall correctly at that point. It's been almost 200 hundred years for our government to have seen great advancements in hand gun technology and no changes have yet to been made or even brought up for the 2nd amendment.

Your point is stupid.

 

[soundforbjt]

What makes you think you have a right to know what I'm carrying around with me?

Don't have a right to privacy? If I do, how does the fact that the 'thing' is a handgun override my right to privacy?

Fern

If there is a situation, where I think you may be a danger to others, Yes I'd prefer to know whether your carrying or not.

 

[Nebor]

I didn't realize Schnedierguy was a bear. I always imagined him as a muscle twink.