BREAKING: U.S. Appeals Court: Constitution Gives Right to Carry Gun In Public

Anti gun liberals have long dominated the media, instilling in many the same reflex fear that many have of snakes and the same instilled ignorance where many can’t assess if a snake is dangereous or not, is displaying any threat or not... they walk through life encombered by irrational fear.
Funny, in my state 1 in 16 has a CCP, meaning, in any supermarket, shopping mall, etc. chances are more than on person is walking about with a concealed gun... no one notices. Out of sight, out of fear.

 

there is no Constitutionally protected right to carry loaded firearms in public outside of Militia duty.

 

You're whistling past the graveyard, Ron.

The courts might have ducked the issue, but now we have contradictory rulings in different jurisdictions; the USSC will have no choice but to ultimately take up the issue. If they do it after a Justice such as Kavanaugh is confirmed, or after RBG finally keels over and is replaced, we're talking a whole new ballgame.

Brace yourself.

 

That is your opinion, Ron. Not reality.

 

Then how is it many of us here have a LTC?

 

in 6 months the En Banc court will agree with me, making my opinion judicially relevent.

 

permits were issued to you at the complete discretion of your state.

 

For people who fish from a moving boat, there is no difference.

 

Trust me...if it wasn't constitutional protected I'm doubtful my state would have issued it.

 

trust me, many very experienced lawyers and judges totally disagree with you.

The view that the Constitution only guarantees the carrying of firearms in public as part of Militia duty, is a sound and viable one.

all your insults and attacks wont change that

 

Factually incorrect. The majority of states that have concealed carry laws, do not have any discretion in arbitrarily determining who can and cannot be issued a license. If a person meets the qualifying standards, they must be issued a license, no exceptions. They cannot require a demonstration of good reason or just cause for being provided with a concealed carry permit.

 

Show where the united state supreme court has ruled such to be the case.

 

according to the US Supreme Court, the States have the authority to be Shall Issue or May Issue with regards to concealed carry in public, requiring the applicant be able to justify and verbalize a specific safety need to protect oneself with a firearm outside the home.

 

Um....what insults and attacks are you referring to? Where did I insult and attack you?

 

If May Issue vs Shall Issue went to the Supreme Court today, the court would uphold the authority of the States to be very loose with their concealed carry laws or very strict. They would also uphold the authority of the States to ban assault weapons.

 

Cite the ruling where such was held to be the case.

According to the Caetano ruling, they would not support prohibitions on commonly owned, commonly available firearms. They did not support prohibitions on handgun ownership despite how often they are utilized for criminal purposes, so prohibitions on common rifles would fare no better.

 

He's fishing from a moving boat.

 

Caetano was a very short ruling that is not considered to have any legal precedent over any other cases or legal disagreements.

 

And yet the united state supreme court specifically stated in the ruling that the second amendment protected all modern, commonly available firearms, even if they qualified as "unusual" from the lens of the first united states congress. They also stated the "dangerous and unusual" standard must be read so that both apply at the same time, not merely dangerous or unusual. And since all firearms are dangerous by their very nature, and none can be classified as being unusual, no firearms available in the public market can be prohibited from legal ownership.

That is ultimately the long and the short of the matter.

 

I contacted a large gun rights groups, asked them if Caetano makes assault-weapon bans illegal.

he said "nope".

SCOTUS copped out in the way they made this decision. I’m not a lawyer but it was explained to me that this is a quick short decision that does not necessarily do anything for the issue at large but does affect the the law that was challenged. Below is a quote from a noted legal scholar.

Lyle Denniston observed that the Court's opinion was the first direct interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment since the Court's 2008 ruling in Heller.[17]However, given the limited nature of the per curiam opinion, Denniston noted that "[t]he facts in this case do not necessarily stand as a definite constitutional declaration".[17]

 

And pray tell whom is the supposed "noted legal scholar" that is being referred to on the part of yourself?

 

In many states, open carry doesn’t require a permit.

 

States have the authority to make such a decision. Just as they have the authority to ban open carry.

 

If states can ban "assault weapons", a completely made up definition, then they can ban any weapon simply by adding it to the assault weapon list.

As soon as the latest SCOTUS nominee is confirmed, we will likely put your words to the test. Remember, the 4th Circuit Court in Kolbe has already admitted that "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" are in common use for lawful purposes and protected by the Second Amendment under Heller.

 

Heller, Miller and McDonald make "assault weapons" bans illegal.

Just what is an "assault weapon", anyway?