dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Correct. He was trying to say that Bruen validated the permitting system, which it didn't. It only forced states to be "Shall Issue"
2nd Circuit Court is alive and well
- Thread starter Zerex
- Start date
ronstar
.357 mag
Wrong. Bruen has not forced all states to be "Shall Issue". Good Guy letters, written exams, field tests, bank checks, employer checks can still be done.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
That is shall issue.
Shall issue doesn't mean you can't run checks.
It means you must have objective criteria and the issuance of such a permit can't be at the whim of some government official.
But, Bruin went much farther than that. What it really did was strike down the "intermediate scrutiny" bullshit that the gun grabbers have been using to justify their crap for a century.
It opened the door to get a lot of stuff tossed.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
In fact, Bruen affirms the “ shall issue “ permit system. Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion stresses it and is backup by other justices. “Constitutional carry “ won’t be done by this current court
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Shall issue states can and do make similar training and written exam requirements. The job and other “ background “ are being challenged. But more importantly, how those backgrounds are judged is what is being changed by Bruen. The court has given new instructions on how to judge those decisions.
My question is: At what point do these requirements become to burdensome on the law-abiding citizen's desire to exercise their Right under the 2nd Amendment?
My position is: If the State wishes to add requirements to exercising a Right, those requirements should be in place for ALL Rights, and be provided by the State in a timely manner and at no charge to the People. Those requirements should also not be impossible for an average law-abiding citizen to complete.
States are not supposed to "tax" a Right. Any cost accrued to complete "requirements" must therefore be the State's responsibility to pay, not the Citizen's.
"Training" and exams must also be provided at any time, so that a citizen does not have to choose between exercising his Rights and earning a living. None of this "there is one instructor, who only works Monday through Wednesday for two hours each day, between the hours of 10:00 AM and 12:00PM".
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
History, Text and Tradition is what SCOTUS say's here is a SCOTUS opinion from 1897 mentioned in both Heller and now Bruen,
ROBERTSON et al. v. BALDWIN.
12
But we are also of opinion that, even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the thirteenth amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 627, 16 Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.
So if the SCOTUS says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" Does that say that CCW is a Right?
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
BINGO!!!
When a person is able to open carry, then no, CCW may not be a Right. (I still consider this statement a grey area, but we'll roll with the S.C. decision).
But as in NY, where open carry is prohibited, then CCW becomes a Right only in that it is the remaining method a person has to "keep and BEAR".
NY could, quite easily, say "ok, we'll allow open carry and use a permit system so people can CCW", but we all know NY would NEVER do anything like that.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Yes, and Open carry is what needs to be challenged ( The State is not going to allow it on their own ) as it would for sure make the State ease the CCW permit system and would also help do away with this semi-auto rifle nonsense as open carry is the true Constitutional Right and long guns are carried openly.
Watch for Second Amendment: Supreme Court win in Young v Hawaii > Hawaii Free Press
and Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al
The Nichols case is now Charles Nichols v Newsom
The 2nd does not say that infringements on certain carry methods is allowed as long if you allow another method.
It says that “to keep and bear” shall not be infringed. Period. Full stop. You should be able to do both without any infringements whatsoever.
Whatever municipalities infringed on one in the past and whatever judge said that it was okay to do so In the past is a moot point. To not allow one method is an infringement despite anyone in authority or whatever person who agrees with those in authority regarding those infringements say.
It says that “to keep and bear” shall not be infringed. Period. Full stop. You should be able to do both without any infringements whatsoever.
Whatever municipalities infringed on one in the past and whatever judge said that it was okay to do so In the past is a moot point. To not allow one method is an infringement despite anyone in authority or whatever person who agrees with those in authority regarding those infringements say.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
The SCOTUS would have to then overrule the SCOTUS opinion that I posted above, They did not and they mentioned it in this ruling and in Heller!
They did not because they want to allow some infringements. That’s plain as day for anyone to see. It would be like allowing free speech only in person but not allowing it in newspapers, blogs, etc and writing an official opinion that as long as it is allowed in person it isn’t an infringement if not allowed via other methods.
And then others can point to that United States vs Joe Schmoe decision and say that it’s constitutional in every conversation or internet discussion and try to tell everyone that that is how it’s supposed to be.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
When those checks are all good, the state shall issue a permit. They can no longer use subjective reasons to deny you like "you don't have a proper need" or "we determined you're not of good moral character". My brother is active duty Infantry and was denied a carry permit from Maryland for "not having a special need to carry a gun". Guess what? Now they HAVE to issue it to him. He passes all the checks.
And until you have that permission slip in NY, you cannot buy a handgun, much less carry it.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
So you want to just throw out this ruling and go back to cases being ruled on by Feelings and Opinions like you are having here and not as ruled on by History, Text and Tradition as laid out in Bruin??
I suggest you go back a read Heller and McDonald.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
That’s a good question . If they said you could only register to vote in one place between the hours of 1pm and 1:15 pm, the court would intervene. It should be the same with other permits that pertain to an individual’s rights like a parade permit or a gun permit. A parade permit is required for certain demonstrations etc and there are often successful court challenges on how they are distributed.
No. I’ll take what I can get but I still want rulings to be ruled correctly as per the words of the founding documents.
Is that hope too much or should I just pretend that they are ruling correctly and keep it to myself?
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
As to the words of the founding documents you say..
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? | Tenth Amendment Center
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one.
tenthamendmentcenter.com
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States?
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Oct 13, 2014|Categories: Bill of Rights, Constitution 101, Eleven Years, Incorporation, Incorporation DoctrineWas the Bill of Rights originally intended to apply to the state governments?
Some people argue that it was. They concoct some interesting arguments based on “rules of construction” or approach it through various philosophies of rights and liberty they attribute to the founders. But there simply exists no founding era evidence that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. In fact, doing so would essentially create a federal veto over state laws, a massive expansion of central government authority – the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one. The preamble makes the purpose of the Bill of Rights very clear.
I suggest you read the whole link above.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. from 2010
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Carrying a weapon is obviously a protected right (that's what "bear arms" means after all).
It *may* be permissible for the government to require it to be carried openly, but I don't think so. I think they got that wrong right from the start.
NY's position requiring it to be carried concealed if at all is obviously in conflict.
The
Later on after the civil war ended where certain states were claiming that it didn’t apply to them by forcibly quartering soldiers in people’s homes, and committing other acts of deprivation, an Amendment was passed to make it clear.
The Founding Fathers did not envision that it was okay for states to commit the same acts that Great Britain did after the Bill of Rights was passed. It would make no sense for only the Federal government to not be able to infringe upon speech, arms, religion, speed trials, etc but the states could.
That’s why the Fourteenth was passed to reiterate the supremacy clause so that no state can deprive it’s citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The Bill of Rights always applied to the states via the supremacy clause. I cannot remember what article that was off the top of my head. Either 4 or 6.As to the words of the founding documents you say..
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? | Tenth Amendment Center
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one.
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States?
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Oct 13, 2014|Categories: Bill of Rights, Constitution 101, Eleven Years, Incorporation, Incorporation Doctrine
Was the Bill of Rights originally intended to apply to the state governments?
Some people argue that it was. They concoct some interesting arguments based on “rules of construction” or approach it through various philosophies of rights and liberty they attribute to the founders. But there simply exists no founding era evidence that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. In fact, doing so would essentially create a federal veto over state laws, a massive expansion of central government authority – the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one. The preamble makes the purpose of the Bill of Rights very clear.
I suggest you read the whole link above.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. from 2010
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Later on after the civil war ended where certain states were claiming that it didn’t apply to them by forcibly quartering soldiers in people’s homes, and committing other acts of deprivation, an Amendment was passed to make it clear.
The Founding Fathers did not envision that it was okay for states to commit the same acts that Great Britain did after the Bill of Rights was passed. It would make no sense for only the Federal government to not be able to infringe upon speech, arms, religion, speed trials, etc but the states could.
That’s why the Fourteenth was passed to reiterate the supremacy clause so that no state can deprive it’s citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Read the 10tn amendment and the section 5 of the 14th amendment.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
That’s why McDonald is an important case that applies it to the states via the 14 th admendmentAs to the words of the founding documents you say..
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? | Tenth Amendment Center
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one.
Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States?
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Oct 13, 2014|Categories: Bill of Rights, Constitution 101, Eleven Years, Incorporation, Incorporation Doctrine
Was the Bill of Rights originally intended to apply to the state governments?
Some people argue that it was. They concoct some interesting arguments based on “rules of construction” or approach it through various philosophies of rights and liberty they attribute to the founders. But there simply exists no founding era evidence that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. In fact, doing so would essentially create a federal veto over state laws, a massive expansion of central government authority – the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.
Most people have never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. In fact, a lot of people don’t even know it includes one. The preamble makes the purpose of the Bill of Rights very clear.
I suggest you read the whole link above.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. from 2010
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Exactly and too many seem to believe the BOR applied to the States before the SCOTUS started incorporating them!
And by the way the Third Amendment is still not incorporated.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
The Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights | Tenth Amendment Center
Claiming the Supremacy Clause applies the Bill of Rights to the states is tortured legal reasoning, at best.
tenthamendmentcenter.com
It is clear from the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the drafting process and debates in Congress, and from the ratification debates in the states, that the Bill of Rights was intended to serve as a restriction on federal power only – not state power. Zero evidence exists that anybody in the founding era thought the Bill of Rights would apply to the states. In fact, when Madison introduced the Amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights, he proposed that some restrictions should apply to state governments. Those proposals were rejected during the drafting process in Congress.
U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
May be read them again.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Not exactly true -but half true . It didn’t go to SCOTUS but in Engblom v Carey, the 2nd federal circuit incorporated it.
In 1982, National guardsmen working the Attica guard strike took over housing of people . The 2nd circuit said it applies to the states
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Way more then half true, 2nd circuit only cover NY, Conn and Vt.
Looks like you haven’t read the Supremacy Clause. You totally ignored it. Unless of course you really believe that the Founding Fathers were totally okay with the states infringing on life, liberty, and property as long as they as the federal government could not.The Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights | Tenth Amendment Center
Claiming the Supremacy Clause applies the Bill of Rights to the states is tortured legal reasoning, at best.
It is clear from the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the drafting process and debates in Congress, and from the ratification debates in the states, that the Bill of Rights was intended to serve as a restriction on federal power only – not state power. Zero evidence exists that anybody in the founding era thought the Bill of Rights would apply to the states. In fact, when Madison introduced the Amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights, he proposed that some restrictions should apply to state governments. Those proposals were rejected during the drafting process in Congress.
U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.constitution.congress.gov
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
May be read them again.
If that is what you truly believe, then we are done talking here.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Yes, but it covers most of us on the forum . There is another case out west .
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Besides your interpretation please show some documentation that the BOR's applied to the States.