• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons

H. Lee White

H. Lee White

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,907
Reaction score
1,014
Location
The great lakes
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons
"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.
Click to expand...
Big win for gun-rights groups: Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons - Sun-Times Politics

Another win for the good guys.
 
H. Lee White said:
Big win for gun-rights groups: Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons - Sun-Times Politics

Another win for the good guys.
Click to expand...

It is those "reasonable restrictions" that always make the court's decision on a "right" seem much more like a privilege.

At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.
Click to expand...

That is over $100 per person (net) for a CCW permit, iff that does not also require another $100 for a prerequisite "NRA" class, normally inculded in the CCW permit "right rental" agreement. In Texas you may now rent that CCW right for $140 (plus $100 for the class), but there is no "open carry" option for a handgun. In other words, you may buy and keep the handgun, but must pay a large fee to actually use/carry the handgun, or be charged with a crime and lose that gun too. Why is it cheaper for the "privilege" to drive than the "right" to carry a handgun? When will a court finally define "infringement" for the second amendment right to match that allowed for the right to vote?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is those "reasonable restrictions" that always make the court's decision on a "right" seem much more like a privilege.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the court wanted something beyond rational basis, and so any constitutionally acceptable restrictios must meet at least intermediate scrutiny, with strict scrutiny more apporopriate (and more likely).

That is over $100 per person (net) for a CCW permit, iff that does not also require another $100 for a prerequisite "NRA" class, normally inculded in the CCW permit "right rental" agreement. In Texas you may now rent that CCW right for $140 (plus $100 for the class), but there is no "open carry" option for a handgun.
Click to expand...
Which amazes me, given that you're talking about TX.
OH is like $35 for 3 years with classes ranging from $0 to 150 - and open carry is allowed.
 
Posner was the judge whose CoA decision in McDonald v Chicago was struck down by the USSC so its not like Posner is a real believer when it comes to gun rights.

Ohio the license is between 50 (renewal), 67 (Ohio resident for more than 5 years) or around 93 for Ohio residents for less than 5 years for a five year license.
 
I would hope the supremes' will just let the decision stand and not take up the case. That would
send the best message than having a "decision." Well in effect it would be a decision. My guess
is the illinois state legislature / governor won't be trusted with creating a reasonable measure for
people to obtain permits and this will go back to court yet again. Sad for the people of this
state they can't protect themselves when needed most.


jamesrage said:
This is good news.Hopefully SCOTUS agrees.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
I would hope the supremes' will just let the decision stand and not take up the case. That would
send the best message than having a "decision." Well in effect it would be a decision. My guess
is the illinois state legislature / governor won't be trusted with creating a reasonable measure for
people to obtain permits and this will go back to court yet again. Sad for the people of this
state they can't protect themselves when needed most.
Click to expand...
I suspect that this is what will happen if the SC lets the decision stand. They will probably do some 100-500$ for a permit,required to submit a fingerprint and DNA,wear a monitoring device and a whole bunch of other infringements while claiming people are allowed to get permits for concealed carry.All while under the guise of "not wanting drug dealers and other criminals to be able to legally have a concealed weapon".
 
jamesrage said:
I suspect that this is what will happen if the SC lets the decision stand. They will probably do some 100-500$ for a permit,required to submit a fingerprint and DNA,wear a monitoring device and a whole bunch of other infringements while claiming people are allowed to get permits for concealed carry.All while under the guise of "not wanting drug dealers and other criminals to be able to legally have a concealed weapon".
Click to expand...

Politicians who don't trust their employers to carry weapons should not be allowed to have armed protection themselves and should be required to post on their residences that they are not armed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom