I really think this is next. While I know this will make for a few more idiots* doing something stupid, the 2nd does say “keep and bear arms”. And I think certain types of violent crime will go down.
In CA, you can’t “bear” arms, pretty much in any of the populated counties. You cant carry concealed or openly.
You gotta love the giveaway words in that ruling: "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, but … "
It’s the familiar pattern of “I am not a racist, but …” which usually concludes with some enlightening observation like “but I don’t want those people in my hotel / restaurant / neighborhood.” You either have a principle or you don’t. You either care about gun violence enough to take meaningful and justifiable action against it, or you don’t.
Sure it does. But what are the first four words?
No - they are saying that the Constitution (in their interpretation, which is in sync with Heller) is clear. Their principle is the Constitution. If you don’t like it, amend it.
I will never understand why anyone would support open-carry.
Live peacefully, for goodness sakes…maybe it’s because I’m from Germany that I think this way.
There are a large number of historians and constitutional scholars who believe that Heller was an idiotic and wholly ideologically based ruling, and who have ample historical evidence for that view. That aside, in my personal and non-lawyerly opinion, this takes Heller to a whole new level. Not even Scalia in his wildest dreams believed that the 2nd bestowed the right for random yokels to wander around in public festooned with guns. It’s literally as if the reaction to all the horrific gun violence of recent years is “this is great, now how can we get more of it?”
Nope. It’s not “literally as if”. It just IS “this is great, now how can we get more of it?”. Open carry and concealed carry, BOTH are nothing but right-to-murder legislation.
Is this a round-about attempt to bring up the idiotic theory that the right to bear arms is a “collective” right?
As usual, you are wildly incorrect. Being able to legally carry a weapon is a “right to NOT get murdered” law.
Sure, but there are *more *that say it was a good solid decision, based upon the Bill of Rights and the Intent of the Framers. There are many historians and constitutional scholars who believe that Roe vs Wade was an idiotic and wholly ideologically based ruling, and who have ample historical evidence for that view. Pretty much you can say that about any controversial decision.
Note that in areas with open carry, they have *lower *violent crime.
And murders have decreased not increased. Violent crime is down.
Show me statistics that say that people with CCW have a high rate of murder. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler
A* newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.
The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott, notes that it is “very rare for permit holders to violate the law” and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.
And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.
“Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” Lott writes. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.”
The report found that while concealed carry-permits have surged since 1999, the murder rates have declined:*
Most people don’t.
In this case, Hawaii forced the issue by effectively forbidding concealed carry. You can’t outlaw both concealed carry and open carry and expect to pass constitutional muster.
Violent crime is down practically everywhere.
When I applied for my license to carry a concealed handgun in Ohio, I was surprised to learn that Ohio is an open-carry state, no license required. That has been the case for far longer than the current law allowing concealed carry, which went into effect in 2004.
I never carry openly, and I don’t think I have ever seen anyone doing so who wasn’t a law enforcement office.
Given Heller and McDonald, which hold that to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unrelated to militia service and incorporated against the states, it would take a severely activist judge to hold that a state could prohibit all types of carry to a typical law abiding citizen. It would almost be like saying, “Sure it says you have to be 35 to be President, but we think it says 45.”
I don’t know if a universal right to open carry is a good idea or not (I’m still thinking through the ramifications), but this sort of ridiculous hyperbole is just stupid. Even if you had universal open or concealed carry it’s not a ‘right-to-murder’, since one of the things you learn about when you get your carry conceal license is all of the really bad shit that can and will happen to you if you actually use that gun, especially if you do so when you shouldn’t. Far from being a ‘right-to-murder’, it actually shows someone who goes through it (instead of some ignorant dude on a message board) how much additional legal headache it is to the person choosing to carry a weapon.
Perhaps do some research on a subject before spouting off non-sense like this in the future.
Cite? Can you show me a large number of historians and constitutional scholars who ‘believe that Heller was an idiotic and wholly ideologically based ruling’? I’ll access…oh, say 75% of historians and Constitutional Scholars polled and shown to have that view as supporting your point, but will be interested in seeing if it’s something else.
Depends on which mathematica base system one is using. Perhaps the framers were using base 13 1/3. 
You may find this discussion forum to be of interest.
http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?119-Ohio
I can show you four Justices.
I fully expect this case to go en banc. Until cert is denied or SCOTUS rules, gun cases take their time winding through the process.
Wow, you people are just so fixated on the idea that, for some reason, people just have to walk around with guns just because it was a right granted hundreds of years ago when bears were in your back yard and most people hunted for food. The most peaceful and democratic societies in the world do just the opposite but, apparently, you continue to perpetuate the ridiculous myth that we are going to lose our freedom if everyone doesn’t tote around a gun. It’s just so absurd, irrational, and contrary to the worldwide evidence to the contrary.
The absurdly high gun death total is going to continue to rise because we have a society permeated with guns.