Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The rulling was in a Federal district appeals court. There are 11 district courts throughout the US. The 9th covers most of the West. A ruling in the 9th covers the states that have jurisdiction in that court.
When you have conflicited rulings from the district courts, then it usually goes to the Supreme court for a ruling. Not always... but can.
Actually, there are 94 Federal judicial districts in the US. Those 94 district courts are distributed among 13 appellate circuits (the numbered 11 + the DC circuit + the Federal circuit).
All states should be "shall issue" and there should be universal reciprocity.
I'm with you on the shall issue point, but not the universal reciprocity.
Well, let me clarify that. I'm against a federal reciprocity requirement. States should be able to choose for themselves whose permits they will or won't honor. When you get fed.gov involved - particularly when you ask for or demand that involvement - you're legitimizing their interference, and they'll feel justified to encroach on our rights more and more and more until there's nothing left.
Let the states work it out. It's not that big a deal. I have permits in Nevada, Utah and Florida, and with those I can carry in the vast majority of states.
Dallas has roughly the same population as Calgary. In 2012 it's violent crime rate was 675 for every hundred thousand people. Calgary's violent crime rate in the same year was 61.2.
Might have something to do with it being a frozen wasteland. Nobody wants to leave the house!
All states should be "shall issue" and there should be universal reciprocity.
That wouldn't be a bad start.
But ultimately, all states should be "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
If you don't want guns in your house, fine, don't bring any in. And if someone wants to bring one in (a friend stopping by before going on a hunting trip, say), You can ask him not to bring one into the house. You can't make him stop carrying it, but you can refuse him entrance to your house, and he can decide on his own if entering your house for a beer is more important than keeping the pistol on his belt or whatever.
And states should also say, "We can't stop you from owning and carrying your gun. But if you threaten someone (with gun or car or fists or any other weapon), you'll spend some time in jail. And if you injure someone (with gun or etc.), you'll spend a WHOLE LOT of time in jail. And if you kill someone... look up "penalties for murder".
If it was genuinely accidental, or if it was self defense, then that changes things.
Owning and carrying a gun is not illegal. But doing certain things with it, is extremely illegal.
The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also
to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us
the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court
already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as
now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the
ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry
groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a
particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’”
according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her
dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear,
bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose
. . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’”
More:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit Ruling
Speakers of the English language will all agree: “bearing a weapon inside
the home” does not exhaust this definition of “carry.” For one thing, the very risk
occasioning such carriage, “confrontation,” is “not limited to the home.” Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012). One needn’t point to statistics to
recognize that the prospect of conflict—at least, the sort of conflict for which one
would wish to be “armed and ready”—is just as menacing (and likely more so)
beyond the front porch as it is in the living room. For that reason, “[t]o speak of
‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward
usage.” Id. To be sure, the idea of carrying a gun “in the clothing or in a pocket,
for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready,” does not exactly conjure up images
of father stuffing a six-shooter in his pajama’s pocket before heading downstairs to
start the morning’s coffee, or mother concealing a handgun in her coat before
stepping outside to retrieve the mail. Instead, it brings to mind scenes such as a
woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous
neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels
to and from his job site.
More:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit Ruling
Other passages in Heller and McDonald suggest that the Court shares
Sumner’s view of the scope of the right. The Second Amendment, Heller tells us,
secures “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’
thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed
to public or private violence.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit Ruling
The Court reinforced this view by clarifying that the need
for the right is “most acute” in the home, Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, thus implying
that the right exists outside the home, though the need is not always as “acute.”
See also McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044 (2010) (“[T]he Second Amendment
protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably
for self-defense within the home.”). In a similar vein, Heller identifies “laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as school and
government buildings” as presumptively lawful. 554 U.S. at 626. Were the right
restricted to the home, the constitutional invincibility of such restrictions would go
without saying. Finally, both Heller and McDonald identify the “core component”
of the right as self-defense, which necessarily “take[s] place wherever [a] person
happens to be,” whether in a back alley or on the back deck
A poster at another forum I frequent posted excerpts from the ruling.... I wonder where all usual CityData 2nd Amendment haters are? In almost every firearm related thread, they're usually calling us "nuts", paranoid, and repeatedly tell us how the 2nd Amendment only applies to our home, how we should not need to or should be allowed to carry outside the home, and how if we were allowed to do so, there would be Armageddon, children would die, the Wild West would return, innocent bystanders would be killed, and all hell would break loose... Now they've all scatted and hide like roaches when the lights are turned on.
The 9th court just spit in Dianne Feinstein's face, now all we need is to get Governor Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg. I'd really want them to get NY next...
Last edited by DoniDanko; 02-14-2014 at 05:17 PM..
If she had said, "Leave your irons at the door, boys, or stay out.", then that would have been legal.
She can't prevent them from carrying guns. No one can.
But she can keep people from entering her property (or in this case her boss's property if he says so) for any reason... including if they are carrying guns.
And there in lies why male concealed carry was illegal back then, but women could conceal carry.
There is a good reason for open carry. You knew who was packing heat and everyone did.
Not likely! LOL!
Only the people that elected their law enforcement can remove them, with the power of the vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
