Supreme Court Takes Up Concealed Carry 2nd Amendment Case

Andrew Donaldson

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

17 Responses

  1. Avatar Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    The association contends that “the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and this Court’s binding precedents compel the conclusion that the Second Amendment does indeed secure that right.”

    Binding Precedents? Huh? The Roberts court is all about tossing binding precedents, as are most Republican politicians and pundits.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    It is considering a law that requires those who seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon show a special need for self-defense.

    I thought for a second whether this was a “may issue” vs “shall issue” debate but I don’t think it’s even there.

    I think it’s one of those things where the state wasn’t even a “may issue” state.

    Am I reading that wrong?Report

    • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      All 50 states and DC will issue concealed carry permits. Some won’t honor permits issued by other states, some will.

      NY is one that requires you to show a specific reason. Eg, my friend had no problem getting a permit after jumping through the hoops. She lived in a relatively rural area and had been verbally threatened by one of the child pornographers she helped convict who was being released from prison. Plaintiffs in this case want to be allowed to carry for much more vague “self defense” purposes.

      My own inclination is to suggest that the plaintiffs need to either consider changes in their lifestyle, or have their meds adjusted.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Too late for that.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Plaintiffs in this case want to be allowed to carry for much more vague “self defense” purposes.

        My ex-sister in law is insane. It would take her cooperation to prove this so officially she is fine. There is certainly no evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. She has occasionally made heinous allegations that the police look at and then dismiss. If she really believed what she’s claiming (which she claims she does), then imho her best option would be to kill members of my family.

        I would like to be able to decide for myself how much “self defense” my family needs. If one of my daughter’s ex-boyfriend’s starts stalking her, I’d like to be able to arm up before he commits crimes.

        I don’t like the idea of needing to justify to anti-gun fanatics or anti-gun police why I need a gun. If the level of proof needed is “the person you’re concerned about needs to have been convicted of a crime and on the official record as having made threats against you”, then that’s way too high. Further I can think of a case where the person who wanted a gun could even pass that threshold and the powers that be tried very hard to pretend it was all in her head.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The problem, as I understand it (I may be wrong) is that in NY, it’s not just May Issue, it’s May Issue that is dependent on the issuing authority deciding that the applicants reason is ‘good enough’.

        I.e. a person who helped law enforcement and is getting threats gets a quick green light, but the BLM activist who is getting threats from right wing militias is told to change their lifestyle and adjust their meds.

        If the issuing authority is permitted to allow their subjective judgement to hold, and their is no higher authority to appeal to, then May Issue only applies to those with the appropriate connections to the issuing authority.Report

        • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          Subjectivity with a Constitutional right seems like its unlikely to withstand continued legal scrutiny.

          I believe Illinois was the last state to issue concealed carry permits (after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled its no-issue law violated the Second Amendment), and they went with mandatory issue either because they saw the writing on the wall or they didn’t want to spend a lot on litigation. I think a handy analogy would be to ask what kind of discretionary judgment would be applied in abortion cases?Report

  3. Avatar Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    There are 9 full discretion “May issue” states (Including the District of Columbia);
    There are 11 discretionary “Shall Issue” states;
    12 No Discretion “Shall Issue” states; and
    19 states that do not require a permit to carry concealed – though all but Vermont issue permits(including Mississippi where I live).

    So the discretionary function only applies to a small minority of states, all of which are considered classically Blue. Seven of those first nine require showing good cause (like in New York); 12 of those first two groups require showing good character or being “suitable.” Interestingly there are 15 across all the groupings that a “Character” Requirement that “Allow Denials When There is Reason to Believe the Person is Dangerous.”

    I can’t for the life of me figure out why we aren’t regulating this nationally . . . especially if we are going to drag the minority of full discretion “May Issue” states kicking and screaming into alignment with the rest using activist judges on the Supreme Court.

    Source – https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/#:~:text=Law%20enforcement%20has%20full%20discretion,Good%20moral%20character%2C%20andReport

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      I can’t for the life of me figure out why we aren’t regulating this nationally

      What would the consensus be?

      especially if we are going to drag the minority of full discretion “May Issue” states kicking and screaming into alignment with the rest using activist judges on the Supreme Court.

      Human rights are a weird thing.

      Some people think that it’s okay to give them to half of everybody.
      Others think that everyone should have them.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        What would the consensus be?

        It seems apparent form the statistics that we are a Shall Issue country.

        Human rights are a weird thing.

        Some people think that it’s okay to give them to half of everybody.
        Others think that everyone should have them.

        Thanks to Heller, SCOTUS has made it clear this right indeed applies to everyone inside their home. The present case simple seeks to define the hurdles outside your home. That’s not a denial to anyone.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          It seems apparent form the statistics that we are a Shall Issue country.

          I think I’d agree with this (or something close to this).

          But if someone asked me why we haven’t regulated ourselves to be a Shall Issue country nationally, I’d say that there is a small but very vocal minority that argues for something close to Gun Control to the point where they see it as absurd that someone might want to concealed carry in the first place. Like, absurd to the point where they can’t believe that the burden of proof would be on them instead of on the phallocentric losers who want to bolster their manhood by carrying an extra metal dick in a holster like they think that they’re in Taxi Driver.

          The present case simple seeks to define the hurdles outside your home. That’s not a denial to anyone.

          We agree that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.
          The question is whether a license to carry concealed weapons is speech or shouting fire.Report

        • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Technically, firearm regulation should be up to the states. The feds should only be concerned with transportation across state lines, and, IMHO, setting up some kind of system for states respecting each other’s carry rules (just like they have to respect marriages, drivers licenses, etc.).Report

          • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            Technically, firearm regulation should be up to the states.

            Only if we’re good letting them regulate speech to the same degree.Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m just going off of what I understand current law to be. The BOR was only originally held against the federal government and had to be held against the states in separate actions.

              IIRC, Heller says the 2nd restricts the fed; McDonald holds it against the states, but only on a Due Process basis, not a P&I basis. So SCOTUS has decided it is different from the 1st Amendment.Report

  4. Avatar Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    Posting to see if I can post.

    Philip H just posted something which my feed showed (to my email), but I can’t see here.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      I’ve noticed a weird lag between when things post here, when they show up in email and when comments become visible. On many days I have seen notices in my email about new topics which take 30 minutes to a couple of hours to show up on the landing page.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        No, looking at my email feed: You edited your post and Your post has a link. That got it jailed until someone (probably JB) freed it.

        So I came here to look for the original post but it didn’t exist and your new (edited) one hadn’t been freed yet.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *