Judge: Conceal carry is NOT a right.

[PrinceofWands]

Only thing there I would disagree with having open carry as the only way to legally carry, for a couple reasons. First, it's really no business of anyone if I am carrying, second, it let's criminals know you are carrying, and third, as of now even places that have had open carry for a long time it still causes issues with people calling the cops, or scaring the ignorant. I'd like to see a more lax conceal carry in that printing isn't a "crime", so if you are responsibly conceal carrying and your shirt comes up, or you bend over cops don't have a coronary.

I agree, that's why I conceal. But if the government has issues I'll back down and switch to open. And when their 911 lines are FLOODED with reports of people carrying, and constant complaints, and women scream and run like crazy people to gather the children to safety, then they'll reverse course and realize that concealed really WAS a better option after all.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, the 2A comes with limitations. You can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you can't go shooting your gun wildly in all directions in a crowded theater, either.

Fools love to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument but never seem to actually think about what it means.

It is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. If there actually was a fire in a crowded theater, is everyone supposed to remain silent? No, it's perfectly legal to shout "Fire!" in a theater, however doing so when there is no fire will probably be viewed as inciting a riot which is a crime. The crime was not the speech, the crime was intentionally inciting a riot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I want to carry my katana. I mean the real folded steel one I have

NY is getting a bit easier. The laws are still screwed up because they were intended to allow one politician the power let his friends have them and his personal body guard, but the ability to deny everyone else in the state the freedom to carry. The sheriffs were beholden to him and if he said "no" that was the answer.

Ironically he met his end in a train station where he somehow wandered into the front of a train all by himself.

That was a hell of a big bullet

Anyway, I can get a concealed carry permit, but it will probably take the better part of a year.

NY, home of the screwed.

 

[classy]

The problem is and always has been, gun supporters believe the 2A is absolute and any boundaries hinders the persons right. That is just not true.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Are the police constantly failing at preventing the innocent from getting murdered?

I'd have to say "YES".

Police show up after a crime has been committed. They don't a have crystal ball telling them where to go beforehand so they can prevent it.

Also, waaay too many stories about women having restaining orders against someone and expressing fear to the police; nothing is done and they are murdered.

Fern

 

[Lithium381]

what?

gun grabbers have this notion that the first minute that a lawful and registered gun owner obtains a gun they are going to load up the magazine and go on a shooting spree. If i were going to go on a shooting spree i sure as f*** wouldn't pay a fine and take a test and register with the state for concealed carry. that's what doesn't make sense to me, the registered gun owners are just a wee bit more responsible and probably a lot less dangerous than people who illegally (possess firearms)(murder)(break and enter)(burgle or rob)(carjack)(otherwise ignore our laws) get a gun.

 

[classy]

gun grabbers have this notion that the first minute that a lawful and registered gun owner obtains a gun they are going to load up the magazine and go on a shooting spree. If i were going to go on a shooting spree i sure as f*** wouldn't pay a fine and take a test and register with the state for concealed carry. that's what doesn't make sense to me, the registered gun owners are just a wee bit more responsible and probably a lot less dangerous than people who illegally (possess firearms)(murder)(break and enter)(burgle or rob)(carjack)(otherwise ignore our laws) get a gun.

Are you serious? LOL You do realize that most of the latest shooting sprees were done by people who had registered or purchased their guns legally. LOL I know you just didn't post that.

 

[irishScott]

The problem is and always has been, gun supporters believe the 2A is absolute and any boundaries hinders the persons right. That is just not true.

No we don't. I don't know any 2nd amendment supporter short of anarchists who would want a gun in the hands of a criminal, psychopath, or someone consistently using the firearm unsafely. That's why almost all shooting ranges will kick you out if you're not wearing ear/eye protection, pointing the gun at someone else (even unloaded), and more than a few don't allow rapid fire.

That said, there are plenty of boundaries that do hinder a person's right. States without shall-issue concealed carry basically force anyone who wants to carry to endure inevitable public scrutiny when none is due, not to mention the other negatives of openly carrying (being noticed by criminals and such).

Another example is not allowing me to carry within 1000 ft of a gun free school zone, making it effectively impossible for me to carry when I go to the starbucks just off campus. Nevermind there's a concrete wall and several buildings that would easily stop a .50 BMG sniper round from reaching campus if I shot straight for it, but screw that I'm within 1000'

Reasonable limitations are one thing, these limitations should not hinder legal users when the illegal users won't follow them anyway.

 

[irishScott]

Are you serious? LOL You do realize that most of the latest shooting sprees were done by people who had registered or purchased their guns legally. LOL I know you just didn't post that.

Yes, which can be attributed to lack of proper reporting on mental instability. But did any of them register and take a class for a concealed carry permit? Nope. Did they carry concealed? You bet.

 

[theeedude]

No, the militia is what is "well regulated", the right to keep and bear arms is what is not to be infringed.

You can still bear arms, openly.

 

[irishScott]

You can still bear arms, openly.

And be subject to public scrutiny and harassment in most areas. Restaurants have kicked legal open carriers out in the middle of their meals because some pussy sheeple got scared. cops have also followed such people around for similar reasons, despite zero threatening behavior. Forcing someone to endure that and denying such things happen is a type of infringement.

 

[theeedude]

I don't see where it puts any restrictions on how you bear your arms.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" = you can carry them however you want

The militia is well regulated, not the "arm bearing business". According to the Supreme Court in Heller v. DC the two clauses are independent, so being part of the "well regulated militia" is not necessary to have the right to "keep and bear arms".

OK, then we can go with what the majority in Heller vs DC said on the subject:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

 

[theeedude]

And be subject to public scrutiny and harassment in most areas.

There is no Constitutional guarantee against public scrutiny. If there is harassment, file a police report.

Restaurants have kicked legal open carriers out in the middle of their meals because some pussy sheeple got scared.

There is no Constitutional right to receive service in a privately owned restaurant.

Cops have also followed such people around for similar reasons, despite zero threatening behavior.

Cops are allowed to observe things in public. If you aren't breaking the law, it's not a problem.

Forcing someone to endure that and denying such things happen is a type of infringement.

No it's not. All these things are legal and Constitutional. (except illegal harassment, which is covered by other laws) "Denying such things happen" is also explicitly protected by the first amendment.

 

[irishScott]

There is no Constitutional guarantee against public scrutiny. If there is harassment, file a police report.

There is no Constitutional right to receive service in a privately owned restaurant.

Cops are allowed to observe things in public. If you aren't breaking the law, it's not a problem.

No it's not. All these things are legal and Constitutional. (except illegal harassment, which is covered by other laws) "Denying such things happen" is also explicitly protected by the first amendment.

Lol. Just because it fits the legalese doesn't mean it isn't infringement. It's like saying there was no racism in the 70s, or no racism today. Just because it isn't legislated or is technically legal doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make it right.

And all of the above issues could be solved by implementing reasonable shall-issue concealed carry. Since no one denies that criminals will carry concealed regardless, why not do so? Seems to work for 38/50 states.

 

[theeedude]

Lol. Just because it fits the legalese doesn't mean it isn't infringement. It's like saying there was no racism in the 70s, or no racism today. Just because it isn't legislated or is technically legal doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make it right.

And all of the above issues could be solved by implementing reasonable shall-issue concealed carry. Since no one denies that criminals will carry concealed regardless, why not do so?

"It fits the legalese" is good enough for a court ruling. Whether or not you think it's infringement or not is irrelevant. It's whether it fits the "legalese" definition of infringement.

 

[Lithium381]

Are you serious? LOL You do realize that most of the latest shooting sprees were done by people who had registered or purchased their guns legally. LOL I know you just didn't post that.

shooting sprees? where and when? how about day to day violence?

 

[irishScott]

"It fits the legalese" is good enough for a court ruling. Whether or not you think it's infringement or not is irrelevant. It's whether it fits the "legalese" definition of infringement.

Then the legalese should be changed, namely to allow shall-issue concealed carry. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Pardon me if I base my opinions and definitions on morals rather than legalities. This is an internet forum, not a court.

 

[theeedude]

Then the legalese should be changed, namely to allow shall-issue concealed carry. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Pardon me if I base my opinions and definitions on morals rather than legalities. This is an internet forum, not a court.

You are entitled to your opinion. The judge is there to rule on the "legalese" as it currently is, not as you wish it were.

 

[xj0hnx]

Are you serious? LOL You do realize that most of the latest shooting sprees were done by people who had registered or purchased their guns legally. LOL I know you just didn't post that.

MOST of them? Most as in ...how many? Two, three? LOL I know you just didn't post that.

 

[classy]

MOST of them? Most as in ...how many? Two, three? LOL I know you just didn't post that.

Jared Loughner
Michael McClendon
VA Tech Killer
Chris Speight

Just to name a few, all in the last couple of years all legally purchased guns.

 

[Lithium381]

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7956828
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/11/stabbing-victim-sees-attacker-on-another-bus/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ged-stabbing-victim-death-snowball-fight.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...tim-fought-for-life-pathologist-testifies.ece
------------------------------------
wow knifes sound dangerous.....should be banned, or regulated. test to buy a butter knife should be implemented at wal-mart or other retailers to make sure the person knows how to use it and then is put in a national database.....
-----------------------------------

 

[irishScott]

You are entitled to your opinion. The judge is there to rule on the "legalese" as it currently is, not as you wish it were.

And the law is, fortunately and unfortunately, vague on this issue. You think the judge wasn't using his morals and his opinions when he made that ruling? What makes his opinion more valid than mine? Outside of the often moronic state of California, nothing. I'm talking about the issue in general, not the judge's decision.

 

[theeedude]

And the law is, fortunately and unfortunately, vague on this issue. You think the judge wasn't using his morals and his opinions when he made that ruling? What makes his opinion more valid than mine? Outside of the often moronic state of California, nothing. I'm talking about the issue in general, not the judge's decision.

His ruling is grounded in the law and USSC precedent. It's also legally binding.
Your opinion is just that, your personal opinion, of no importance to anyone but you. If it's more valid to you, great.

 

[Brigandier]

His ruling is grounded in the law and USSC precedent. It's also legally binding.
Your opinion is just that, your personal opinion, of no importance to anyone but you. If it's more valid to you, great.

Actually, as long as he doesn't live in California, California law means nothing to him. He's is free to speak however he wants about California Law, whether or not he is informed on it, is an entirely different matter.

 

[Triumph]

Fools love to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument but never seem to actually think about what it means.

It is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. If there actually was a fire in a crowded theater, is everyone supposed to remain silent? No, it's perfectly legal to shout "Fire!" in a theater, however doing so when there is no fire will probably be viewed as inciting a riot which is a crime. The crime was not the speech, the crime was intentionally inciting a riot.

what is this, Obvious Tuesday?