Will Supreme Court decision invalidate need for CHL

[BigBlueDodge]

As we grow closer to the monumental ruling by the Supreme Court, I've begun to wonder if it will invalidate the need for my CHL I am waiting to get from Austin. While taking my class, our instructor indicated that if the Supreme Court affirmed individual's right to bare arms, then everyone would have a right to carry a weapon on them, and that there would be no need for CHL. At this point this would all be speculation, but I am curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[AEA]

I think you're jumping the gun...........(pun intended).

[TDDude]

I always thought that it was up to the states to regulate carrying. Perhaps Carrying and Bearing have different meanings.

I'm not a lawyer but my ex-wife married one.

[bpet]

I think your instructor was probably letting his hopes influence his presentation to an extent not justified by the facts.

While we can all hope, it would take a much broader ruling than what was challenged to get the results that he alluded 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, but I find it unlikely. If they issued a strict Constitutional reading, we would return to "any gun, anyone, anywhere, any time".

Don't bet the farm on that happening, though.

For starters, the case doesn't even involve carrying guns. It is about a ban on owning handguns, or having a long gun available for defensive use in the home.

The ruling could narrowly overturn the DC ban on owning handguns, and their storage requirements, but not much else.

[SCone]

Texas Constitution specifically says, "regulate the wearing of arms"

[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.

[BigBlueDodge]

Hmm, let me ask this.

Is the Supreme Court ruling on whether D.C. unilateral ban on handguns is unconstitional, or is the Supreme Court ruling if it is constitutional for D.C. to restrict an individual's right to posses arms in his home? These are two very different arguments that have two very different outcomes, in my opinion.

From my understanding, the Supreme Court is ruling on whether it is unconstitutional for D.C. to ban an individual's right to own firearms. From my readings, it was not clear that they were only focusing their ruling to the boundaries of the home. My impression was that the court is ruling whether D.C. can basically overrule the 2nd ammendment.

If the court is only focusing on an individuals right to own arms inside of his/her house, then this ruling is incomplete. It seems to me, that if an individual is granted a right, that right should carry with them in all of their surroundings. Don't the D.C. citizens still need that right when they commute to work, when they are in their work, in their place of worship, etc? If D.C. is only focused on ruling about an individual's right within their home, they are ignoring how that right applies in the public domain. The courts don't constrain an individuals right to free speech just to their home. An individual can speak his mind anywhere. So if this ruling is strictly for D.C. vs Heller, the only outcome is that D.C. will lift their ban and citizens of D.C will be able to own a gun in their home. Nothing more.

But, given the hype the case is receiving, I find it hard to believe that is only the scope of the case. Seems to me, the court is making a decision on the fundamental right of the 2nd ammendment, whether individuals have the right to own arms. If that is the case, and the courts ruling supports that, wouldn't it force policy changes that would open looser laws about individuals owning, and carrying arms on their person for protection?

It has me wondering what changes lie ahead for CHL owners based on the outcome of the court's ruling. If I were to listen to my instructor, at the end of June, mass hysteria will take place, all laws will be repealed and everyone will be able to carry guns and I would have wasted my time and money for getting a CHL.

[BigBlueDodge]

BigBlueDodge, please read this post: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=15176, and then edit your previous post as needed.

Hmm, I was scratching my head when reading that because I really didn't know what you were referring to. I didn't curse, and I certainly didn't think I said anything offensive. But, none the less, I pulled out the part that I *think* you are referring to. In all honesty, I never thought that would be offensive in the least bit, but guess I was wrong. I'm new, but certainly don't want to rock the boat and violate any rules. Post has been edited.

Also, your argument comparing the first amendment with the second is flawed, as you certainly cannot "speak your mind" anywhere. Try standing in an airport and yelling "I have a bomb!" or standing on a street corner cursing everyone that walks by. The fact that you cannot do that follows that the first amendment comes with a "reasonable restrictions" rider attached to it.

I really doubt that the supreme court is going to rule the second amendment cannot have restrictions placed on it.

I agree, the 1st Amendment does have some restriction. However, the first Ammendment is not solely confined to your home. You most certainly can go on a street corner and preach how the government needs to be overturned, etc (I know because I've seen guys do it) That was the point I was trying to make. 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.

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. 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.

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

[Keith B]

The fee we pay keeps the riff-raff out.

I don't think most riff-raff would have any qualms about paying as it seems most of them have more money than me. However, I think the class and the required background checks do deter some of them from 'being on record' with fingerprints and photos.

[TDDude]

Texas Constitution specifically says, "regulate the wearing of arms"

That's where I read it.

[Liko81]

I always thought that it was up to the states to regulate carrying. Perhaps Carrying and Bearing have different meanings.

I'm not a lawyer but my ex-wife married one.

States, including Texas, have generally given themselves that proviso. The constitutionality of it is not currently in question per se; what is in question is whether a combination of laws, none of which would ban carry by itself but together do exactly that, is unconstitutional.

The three laws are, in effect:

* A handgun must be registered with the District in order to be posessed legally.
* No handguns can be registered after 1978.
* Long guns must be kept either secured by a trigger lock or in a safe, or unloaded and disassembled.

DC has been arguing that the suit is groundless because the laws ban only one type of weapon and do not infringe the right to own long guns. Alan Gura argued in return, and both the Appeals Court and Supreme Court appear to have agreed, that the third law, coupled with the first two that combine to totally ban handguns, amounts to a ban on "functional firearms" which the Appeals court stated was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

As I said, licensing and regulated carry in and of itself is not really the issue; the issue is that a law masquerading as "reasonable restriction" amounts to a total prohibition. In Texas, despite the backlog, you meet the requirements, you file the paperwork, and you get your CHL. In DC, the license to own a handgun (this isn't even about carry anymore but simply possessing it in the District) may exist in theory, but nobody can get one. In Texas, though OC is illegal, it is legal to keep a loaded firearm in your home (you must secure it against access by children if there are any in the house). In DC, it is illegal to do so; the weapon must be kept unloaded and secured or disassembled. This is the difference between infringement and "reasonable restriction" as has been stated in even the amici briefs filed on behalf of Heller. Most of those arguing that D.C.'s ban is unconstitutional nevertheless have an interest in making sure SCOTUS does not overturn all licensing laws in doing away with the DC ban. Those filing in support of DC largely have the same argument and in fact state that overturning DCs gun laws, wholly or in part, would destroy all attempts to regulate ownership and thus even if it is unconstitutional it must be allowed to stand on necessity .

Unless SCOTUS, in issuing its ruling, states that the spirit of each law as well as the combination is unconstitutional, I think you'll be needing your CHL for some time to come.

[mr surveyor]

Texas Constitution specifically says, "regulate the wearing of arms"

not to sidetrack the original thread, but I wonder how the word "wearing" in this context compares to "carrying". I would think "wearing" would be equivalent to a gun belt holster combination, or an OWB holster, or other method of carry usinig some apparatus that is actually designed to be strapped to the body. On the other hand, is pocket carry also defined as "wearing"?


surv