All Eyes on SCOTUS Today

[8bit_Theatre 64]

unfortunate. As shown in California, some counties only allow those with political connections to have a CCW.

[jg121783 3,908]

46 minutes ago, ccneat said:

 

 

The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

The justices by a 7-2 vote turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended that most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area were being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The justices let stand a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the “2nd Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, said the court's refusal to hear the appeal "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right.”

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-handguns-california-20170626-story.html

I actually agree with this. That is why in most states with concealed carry you need a permit (with the exception of a few states that don't require a permit). Now open carry is a different matter entirely. The second amendment does allow you to open carry in public. In fact every state I am aware of that allows open carry does not require a permit to open carry.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

38 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I actually agree with this. That is why in most states with concealed carry you need a permit (with the exception of a few states that don't require a permit). Now open carry is a different matter entirely. The second amendment does allow you to open carry in public. In fact every state I am aware of that allows open carry does not require a permit to open carry.

What about Massachusetts?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, CookieCat said:

~Yet another thread of an identical topic merged with this existing thread.~

VJ Moderation

Mod This is not an identical  topic

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I don't know much about these cases other than what I read here (will have to read up on them later when I have time) but in the right to bear arms extending outside your property is a no brainer. I don't see anywhere in the constitution where it says the right to bear arms is a right that can only be exercised on private property. As far as felons owning guns goes I can certainly understand restricting violent felons from owning guns but there are some non violent felons that I just can't see a legitimate reason to bar them from owning guns.

I personally know a "convicted felon" who stabbed someone over a decade ago in self defense and can't own a firearm. I see no reason why he should not be able to own one.

[8bit_Theatre 64]

Just a clarification on the news story - the lawsuit was specifically about a requirement to show "good cause" for a CCW. The problem with this is that it falls down to the discretion of one individual - your local sheriff. This opens up all sorts of issues, not the least of which is that the system makes it easy for discrimination.