The Supreme Court left in doubt Monday whether gun owners have a 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.
Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down a gun-rights challenge to a New York law that strictly limits who can legally carry a weapon when they are on the streets. To obtain a "concealed carry" permit, New Yorkers must convince a county official that they have a "special need for protection" that goes beyond living or working in a high-crime area.
Only about one-tenth of 1% of New Yorkers have concealed-carry permits, compared to more than 6% in the neighboring states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania, the court was told.
Several gun owners who were denied a "concealed carry" permit sued, arguing they had a 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun for self-defense.
Rather than hear their appeal, the high court let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have broad authority to regulate guns in public.
You see, this is why gun-rights will not prevail. Even with a conservative Court, they cannot win. I't only gonna get worse for them.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
A minor setback and a delay to a decision they will have to make eventually since there's a circuit split on the issue. Unless, of course, we win the matter before their hand is forced.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, Why do we have moderation again? Did Kurt's occasional insults sting too much? They weren't really that much worse than the comments about how all southerners are racists, and how gun owners are pin-dick idiots.
The 8 hour lag isn't exactly pleasant.........
DeleteAnd, alas, Tennessean, one which will probably not go your way if Scalia can keep to his own pronouncements.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, he has shown he doesn't and is more than willing to make law on his own.
Yet, I don't see you lot bitching about activist judges.
Hoffman is a ----.
Laci,
DeleteAs we've discussed before, you have a twisted idea of the original intent of the Second Amendment and various other parts of the Constitution. If you were right in your interpretations, Scalia would be an activist, but seeing as he's sticking closer to the original intent, he's not nearly the activist you seem to think he is.
As for your comments about him needing to keep to his own pronouncements--I find it hilarious that you understand his meaning better than he does. Yes, he said that the government could enact some restrictions and regulations. You cite this language and say that if he strikes down ANY existing laws or new ones, that he's going against that statement.
Frankly, your analysis again falls short. It would be like reading dicta referring to the government's ability to ban child pornography and stating that the court would be going against precedent if it struck down ANY book bans.
Scalia's pronouncements, as you call them, were dicta referring to a regulatory authority that we have not yet defined the bounds of. I think the court should find a right to carry. Perhaps they will find that this can be regulated with a shall issue permit system, or even a may issue one. Time will tell. In the mean time, I'd recommend that you stop broadcasting foolishness by saying that Scalia will be going against himself if he EVER strikes down a gun law--saying this over and over really makes you look like an exceptionally dim-witted fresher.
This is how the court operates. The same thing happens with many controversial subjects. But you and Laci specifically ignore the ruling covering Illinois. Remember that one? The one that said the state must institute a carry licensing system? Have you also forgotten the fact that forty states have either shall-issue or constitutional carry?
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is why gun-rights will not prevail. Even with a conservative Court, they cannot win. I't only gonna get worse for them.
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Keep telling yourself that--it's so much more comforting to you than reality, isn't it? [still chortling]