Will Supreme Court decision invalidate need for CHL

[austin]

It would be nice if the Court issued a broad ruling nullifying every law, rule, or ordinance that restricts in any way the carry of firearms,

What was Roe V Wade?

[anygunanywhere]

What was Roe V Wade?

Seriously?

Roe v Wade was the ruling that unleashed (legalized) abortion. The court found it in the Constitution or BOR somewhere but can't seem to find the second amendment.

Back on topic.

The SCOTUS decision will be very narrow in nature and will not satisfy the freedom cravings that reside in most of us.

Anygunanywhere

[drw]

According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Maybe a case can be made that NICS checks, registration, licensing, etc, violate privacy?

[BigDan]

HONESTLY, I *DON'T* want everyone to carry. There are MANY people I know that have no business whatsoever in carrying a loaded weapon!!

[Texian]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1. This applies to (all) the people; not just the military or the National Guard or governmental police agencies.

2. This does not establish a right. It recognizes an existing right; a natural right.

3. The right as stated does not preclude completely the regulation of how it is exercised. For example, the wearing of firearms should not be considered alarming or threatening behavior to the general populace (it was never so in the early history of our nation), but brandishing (waving or displaying in a manner calculated to threaten or alarm), aggressive or criminal behavior would be and such acts should be under the control of the states. Also, felonious behavior can result in forfeiture of rights (such as your freedom).

The Heller case doesn't even raise the issue of "carrying," only
"keeping" a handgun. Some S/Ct. Justices may write on the issue, but it
will be merely dicta.

Chas.

So, can SCOTUS give an opinion on one part of the second amendment and ignore the rest of it? If the State of Texas can regulate the carrying (bearing) of arms, can they not also regulate the keeping (ownership) of arms? Does the second amendment authorize citizens to use arms for illegal purposes (which are not constitutionally protected) that are proscribed by the states, or does it simply guarantee the preexisting right to keep and bear arms?

[DParker]

From the feedback I got in this thread, posters seemed to indicat that the court's decision was only focused on the right as it pertains to your house. My rebuttal is that the right extends beyond your house, and if the courts indeed were only arguing for the domain of the house, I felt the scope of the case is too confined.

That is not at all representative of the scope of the case.

I fully suspect that the the courts will try and split the middle, by affirming the second ammendment but providing states some ability to put reasonable restrictions on it.

I suspect that you're probably correct.

So back to my original question. If the courts say you have the right to own arms to protect yourself, is it reasonable for the states to restrict that right only to people who have to pay for it? If government feels you are qualified to purchase and own a gun, is it reasonable for the government to restrict you from carrying it? This goes back to my original point. D.C. did exactly that. They said individuals could own rifles/shotguns but they must be store dissassembled/unloaded in a locked area. That is not reasonable.

It is unreasonable to the point of effectively constituting a ban. But if the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing public carry then that may well be a "reasonable" restriction, in legal terms...since it does not effectively constitute a ban.

Today, the Government says citizens can purchase a gun, but must leave it at home or in your car. You cannot carry the gun with you outside of these areas.

Which "the Government" are you referring to?

Would this be considered "reasonable" with the new ruling?

See my previous comment on this same question.

To me, the government saying that the gun must be concealed is "reasonable", but saying that you cannot carry it on you could be viewed as unreasonable.

Anything could be viewed as unreasonable. The question is, would the relevant judge(s) agree with that view.

This is the point of my question, as I it could be very possible that their ruling could have some affect on the legality of citizens being allowed to carry firearms without the need for a CHL.

That's not at all likely, given the case that was presented to the court.

Oh, and sorry...but I feel compelled to put on my Spelling Nazi arm-band for just a second...

It's "amendment", not "ammendment".

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Heller case doesn't even raise the issue of "carrying," only
"keeping" a handgun. Some S/Ct. Justices may write on the issue, but it
will be merely dicta.

Chas.

So, can SCOTUS give an opinion on one part of the second amendment and ignore the rest of it? If the State of Texas can regulate the carrying (bearing) of arms, can they not also regulate the keeping (ownership) of arms? Does the second amendment authorize citizens to use arms for illegal purposes (which are not constitutionally protected) that are proscribed by the states, or does it simply guarantee the preexisting right to keep and bear arms?

This is a procedural matter. Judge Silverman who authored the Heller opinion for the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly stated this is a "keeping case," not a "bearing case." Since the underlying facts in the case did not involve "bearing" arms outside one's residence, the issue is not before the Court. The Court's decision must be based upon the issues before it. If any of what I expect to be multiple opinions deal with carrying guns, machine guns, etc., then any statements on those issues are called dicta, meaning they are not part of the Court's ruling on the issues. Dicta can be very helpful in determining how particular justices will vote if/when a case presenting those issues reach the Court, but it is not binding.

Chas.

[Texian]

Thanks Mr. Cotton,

A favorable opinion on part of the second amendment will still be a major victory for gun rights and the "dicta" that you have explained may be significant for future opinions on carrying.

[anygunanywhere]

HONESTLY, I *DON'T* want everyone to carry. There are MANY people I know that have no business whatsoever in carrying a loaded weapon!!

The second amendment does not agree with you. Those who you think have no business carrying a loaded weapon have the same rights you have. That is honestly the truth about God given rights.

Anygunanywhere

[casingpoint]

It seems the Heller case may have been an overall a poor choice for a Second Amendment case. So narrowly focused as to be a waste of time and money.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It seems the Heller case may have been an overall a poor choice for a Second Amendment case. So narrowly focused as to be a waste of time and money.

Although it never should have been filed at the time it was filed, a decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right is of critical importance, even if it leaves many areas open to future interpretation.

Chas.

[SCone]

I've found the best arguement for the 2nd Amendment starts with, "What is an amendment?" An amendment is a change or correction to something that has been previously stated. Knowing that, we must look at the main body of the Constitution.

It states, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Knowing this, ask yourself, "What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with the militia?"

NOTHING! Congress already has all the power they need to deal with the militia.

The 2nd Amendment is written in a way that acknowledges the body of the Constitution (ie-A well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State) then it makes the statement we all know and love, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How do we know this is an individual right? Simple, ask yourself a few questions.

"Is there anything in the 2nd Amendment that changes the powers given to the Congress in the body of the Constitution?"

"If there was no 2nd Amendment, would the powers given to Congress change in any way?"

"If none of the powers given to Congress would change in any way, even if the 2nd Amendment was removed, then why did our fore-fathers see the need to pass the Amendment?"

Easy, without the 2nd Amendment, Congress would be in charge of all Arms.

[KBCraig]

HONESTLY, I *DON'T* want everyone to carry. There are MANY people I know that have no business whatsoever in carrying a loaded weapon!!

Sarah Brady agrees with you. She just happens to include you, me, Charles Cotton, and every other non-LEO civilian in the group of people who "have no business whatsoever in carrying a loaded weapon".

Aren't you glad we don't base the exercise of the 2nd Amendment on whether someone else thinks we should be allowed to?

[KBCraig]

It would be nice if the Court issued a broad ruling nullifying every law, rule, or ordinance that restricts in any way the carry of firearms,

What was Roe V Wade?

I can only assume you're implying a states' rights issue, but Roe is a poor comparison. Even strong abortion rights proponents acknowledge that Roe is extremely weak, Constitutionally speaking.

The obvious difference is that RKBA is explicitly found in the Constitution, and should be applied to the states as well through the 14th Amendment. Abortion has no equivalent standing.

[casingpoint]

Back to the original thread, yes, a proper second amendment case would either invalidate the need for a CHL or allow for open carry. The right to bear cannot be infringed in any way. At least one method of carry must have all the stops pulled. It seems logical the Founding Fathers were writing the Bill of Rights with open carry in mind. That sound you hear is Austin choking as it reads this.