Strange. I am making no type of distinction, retarded or otherwise.
I am simply asking you if concealed carry is an enumerated right in the Constitution. I am not asking you if the right to carry is an enumerated right. I am asking you if the right to concealed carry is an enumerated right. And you still refuse to answer. Telling.
Maybe an easier question - Do you feel the right “to keep and bear arms” means both open carry and concealed carry?
SCOTUS has not ruled on that, specifically, afaik. ianal. IIRC they have dodged the question.
They may do so:
On July 25, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington’s tough local restriction on who can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The ruling conflicted with those of four other intermediate courts of appeal that in recent years have upheld regulations limiting what’s known as “concealed carry.” Resolving such conflicts among the lower courts is one of the Supreme Court’s main responsibilities, and the D.C. case would provide a suitable vehicle for addressing the degree to which the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun outside the home.
I suspect that like Heller, they will rule that “unreasonable” limitations are an infringment*, but that “reasonable” requirements are not.
Putting an end to silly areas like LA County where the only way to get a CCW is thru poltical patronage, they only have a coupel hundred issued.
IMHO yes, it does, but with “reasonable limitiations”.
Not so long ago, there were accusations thrown around how anti-gun people were “willfully ignorant” about facts, like what a semiautomatic firearm is, etc.
Now we have seen the OP assert factually incorrect statements, like that concealed carry is an enumerated right in the Constitution. As many lawyers have said, “There are no rights without corresponding legal remedies.” There is no legal remedy for a person carrying concealed weapons across state lines in violation of the laws of the state to which the person has traveled. This right does not exist; nor if the bill in question passes would this right be created.
Further, we have seen the OP assert that the bill under discussion is no different than the Federal government’s recognition of certain rights regarding abortion, civil rights, and so on. Again, this is factually untrue.
The Federal statutes and court rulings on these subjects are fundamentally different than the bill under discussion. There’s no Federal policy that if a Californian is in Alabama that California laws on abortion, civil rights, etc. shall apply to that person.
Instead, Federal policies have established a minimum standard that states must comply with, due to actually recognized constitutional rights or by legislation, but the laws of one state do not override the laws of others when people travel.
So for those who said that anti-gunners attempt to operate under alternative facts (my term not yours), what say you to Damuri Ajashi’s errors made in his last few posts?
Yep, I think that was the rationale behind the California carry case.
Again, SCOTUS has not ruled on this, so you can’t say Damuri is wrong. It is a reasonable stance to take.
It means some form of carry. Either one is fine, I have a preference but I am not the king.
Well, he seemed pretty perturbed that SCOTUS ruled that abortion was a Constitutional right that was “established out of whole cloth from the “penumbra” of rights in the constitution” but I’m sure he will be happy when SCOTUS does the same thing for “concealed carry”
I was running off Snopes which comes to a somewhat different conclusion than politifact.com (mostly by looking at a different timeframe: 99-08 instead of 10-15) so you know…“lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Ok, thank you for finally answering. I don’t believe it means concealed carry. I believe it only means open carry. How should we resolve this disagreement?
No, it is not. He’s claiming a fact that is not recognized by law. Just like if I assert that every American has a right to health care, I would be wrong, even if the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on that specific issue. Could they some day? Sure. Would they go my way? Maybe, maybe not. But as a factual matter, Americans do not have a right to health care.
Once again: there is no right without a corresponding legal remedy. There is no legal remedy, so there is no right.
For all the times I see anti-gunners accused of saying things that are not right in order to advance an agenda, you can’t recofnize similar behavior from pro-gunners?
NYC has similar patronage requirements to get a permit. You are supposed to be able to get a permit if you carry lots of cash but unless some of that cash makes it into the hands of the county party bosses, you’re not likely to hear another word about your application. That’s how my dad got his permit.
Not true. Did gay men havae the Right to enjoy gay sex before SCOTUS ruled they did? Certainly, even thos sometimes they were jailed for doing so. SCOTUS didnt make it into a new right, they said the right was always there.
The Second Ad does give gun owners rights. They have always had those rights. Even before Heller, for example.
How can you say you have the right to do something if you get jailed for doing it?
Where do I say that? Is this another case of anti-gun ignorance or is it just generic ignorance?
Once gain. Where do I say that? I am pretty sure I was comparing the enumerated rights under the 2nd amendment compared to the constructed out of whole cloth rights of abortion. Manson1972’s attempts to get me to say that concealed carry rights are an enumerated right to the contrary, I don’t think I ever said any of what you said I said.
More ignorance perhaps?
Perhaps you are having trouble understanding context. We were talking about how gun rights compare to abortion rights.
What is the federal minimum standard for the right to carry arms?
You’ve presented several alternative facts in this very post.
That, and I don’t think I ever took this stance.
Becuase that was held to be unconstitutional. And many such caes were expunged or reversed.
after all, Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted. But their conviction was overturned.
Not in so many words, true.
First of all, I am pro-choice. I think Roe V Wade is a horribly reasoned opinion but I agree with the results and I suspect that most of the constitutional lawyers that support abortion kinda wish that it wasn’t just a horribly reasoned opinion.
I don’t think the constitution right now requires any particular type of carry but it does require SOME type of carry.
And if SCOTUS found a right to concealed carry, it wouldn’t be penumbra because carry rights are right there in the constitution. They could easily find that concealed carry is as constitutionally required as handguns because it is the preferred method of carry of most people who carry, just like handguns are the preferred method of self defense by so many people who own guns for self defense.
Nothing related to gun ownership or gun carrying would be penumbra because those things are specifically mentioned in the constitution. That doesn’t mean they are constitutionally required but just as the court found handguns to be constitutionally required in Heller, they could find concealed carry specifically to be required as well.
Get you to say? I simply asked what you thought. You could have answered either way.
No, they did not, because they were punished for doing so.
If you get punished for doing something, it isn’t a right. That’s as clear as black and white.
eta: the Second Amendment does indeed provide rights, but your comments on Heller are not correct. DC residents were generally prohibited from owning pistols; now they are not.
The idea that people can be in jail for excercosing their rights is a mockery of the whole concept of rights.