• 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!

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.
The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New Jersey state law that requires people who want to carry handguns to show they have a special reason before they can get a permit. The court has shown a reluctance to wade in on the issue in recent months, declining to hear cases that challenged similar regulations in New York and Maryland.

'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
Just doing some quick research and ran across this: McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The synopsis is
the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NJ requiring a special reason to carry a gun infringes on the second amendment.

'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
Obviously this is a political motivated decision that comes from outside influence. It would seem to me that by declining such a case it gives reason to suspect that the decision on the law would be in favor of the gun owners. As the article states, setting a precedence which would threaten the stranglehold liberal NY and Maryland have on its citizens, tearing to shreds the charade of freedom, exposing and eliminating the soft despotism which is in place there as it regards guns would cause quite an upset.

We've a coward in the WH, we've a bunch of cowards in Congress, why would anyone think the Judicial branch of government would be free and clear of cowards?
 
The decision not to make a ruling is, in effect, making a ruling to let the lower court's ruling stand. This is the most ridiculous malfunction of our SCOTUS the second most being ruling only on some obscure point of law used in a lower court's decision and thus skirting the basic issue entirely.

The 2A is a compound right of the people to keep and bear arms. I can see no logic in allowing a state to require a permit to carry (bear) a gun yet not to simply possess (keep) one. That likens the constitutional right of gun use to the state issued privilege of driving; you may only drive your car on public roadways after paying a hefty registration fee and then renting additional permission from the state (acquiring a driver's license) to do so.
 
I personally would like to see a lawsuit challenging the need for a CCW permit in the first place.
 
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
 
Just doing some quick research and ran across this: McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The synopsis is It seems pretty obvious to me that NJ requiring a special reason to carry a gun infringes on the second amendment.

McDonald v. Chicago ruling was an extention of Heller. Heller allowed weapons for self-protection in the home...in the DC. [McD v Chi] extended that right to the states.

No court has ruled yet if use extends outside the home... conceal /open carry.
 
I personally would like to see a lawsuit challenging the need for a CCW permit in the first place.

There is little doubt that requiring a permit is a violation of the second amendment.
 
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.

I also think that it is somewhat cowardly. On the other hand, it is not quite a non-decision. They let the decision stand.
 
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.

That is nonsense because that is precisely what the SCOTUS did - they said **** the constitution we decline to enforce it.
 
There is little doubt that requiring a permit is a violation of the second amendment.

There is no doubt that outlawing open carry (of a handgun) violates the 2A, but that is the law in Texas (even with a CHL).
 
That is nonsense because that is precisely what the SCOTUS did - they said **** the constitution we decline to enforce it.

By not hearing the case, they allowed the lower court's interpretation to stand. It's just not the ruling you would have wished for.
 
McDonald v. Chicago ruling was an extention of Heller. Heller allowed weapons for self-protection in the home...in the DC. [McD v Chi] extended that right to the states.

No court has ruled yet if use extends outside the home... conceal /open carry.

Are there any other individual constitutional rights that one enjoys only while in their home? It does not take a legal genius to make that simple call.
 
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.

Why do you consider them gun 'nuts'? Because they believe differently than you do? Because they believe all Americans should have the right to practice the second amendment?
 
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.

Gun nut? OK, I'm a gun nut. I will wear that moniker proudly. Best way to deal with the kind of name calling you are doing. So keep flinging that poo. It doesn't bother me in the least. :mrgreen:
 
By not hearing the case, they allowed the lower court's interpretation to stand. It's just not the ruling you would have wished for.

Precisely my point. The SCOTUS has just ruled that states can require "may issue" permits for individual constitutional rights. That is HUGE, meaning that only indivuduals selected by the state have 2A rights. What is next - allowing state "may issue" permits for having an attorney present during police questioning?
 
So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.
 
So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.

I'm consistent. I am against the school prayer ruling too..... Well, actually, I'd be for it if they allowed Pastafarianism in our schools. Talk Like a Pirate Day could become a real American tradition. ARRRRRR!! :mrgreen:
 
That is nonsense because that is precisely what the SCOTUS did - they said **** the constitution we decline to enforce it.
`
That's one popular position to take but that only adds a third reason why SCOTUS wisely stayed away....let the legislative branch do their job.
 
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.
I would add that to carry outside the home, one should also have full FBI variety background check, pass a required gun safety/handling/proficiency course, and register your firearm. This is what I had to do to get a CCW in Idaho, one of the reddest states in the country, well, I didn't have to register my handgun, but I think probably I should have been required to if I was going to carry such that if my gun and I got separated and the police arrived, the police would immediately know what they were looking for and what threat it might cause them.
 
I'm consistent. I am against the school prayer ruling too..... Well, actually, I'd be for it if they allowed Pastafarianism in our schools. Talk Like a Pirate Day could become a real American tradition. ARRRRRR!! :mrgreen:

Yeah, I tend to think they should have taken this case and left the prayer thing alone. I don't particularly have a problem with the prayer ruling except that it's so toothless as to have no meaning. I would have liked to have seen this ruled on, but there may have been something with the case that we don't see.
 
`
That's one popular position to take but that only adds a third reason why SCOTUS wisely stayed away....let the legislative branch do their job.

Does that job include ignoring the US constitution?
 
So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.

I assume that the prayer ruling referred to was that it is not establishing a state religion to allow various prayers to be said in the statehouse. Hardly a tough call on that. The idea that a state can mete out individual US constitutional rights only to selected citizens for a fee is also hardly a tough call.
 
`
The judicial branch of the federal government has every constitutional right to decline to see a case. Congress is trying to force the judicial to do what they are elected to do: Pass laws.
 
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Even if you believe that there is a constitutional right to carry, this was probably the right choice of action. The problem is what any kind of ruling would have meant.

Carry permits are issued by the state and local governments. If the courts would have ruled that NJ was not within their rights to insist on certain prerequisites then the court would be in essence nationalizing at least a portion of the conceal carry regulations. In otherwords, the court would unavoidably be legislating large amounts of policy all across the US.

Local communities have a better sense of what constitutes common sense arms regulations than a national movement. Central Wyoming isn't the same as down town NYC. Communities should be allowed to set gun policy based on what makes sense for that area. I see the second amendment as saying that governments can't pass any weapon restrictions without compelling reason; and in the case of doubt error on the side of gun freedom. At the same time, courts shouldn't overrule local gun laws unless the laws serve no defensible purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom