How do you guys feel about the idea of conceal carry being incorporated into the Second Amendment? As it stands the Supreme Court has only explicitly said that firearms in homes cannot be legislated against.
A number of states already put special requirements to gain conceal carry rights; NY,NJ, CA etc.
I'd be interested to see this go to the Supreme Court.
Other urls found in this thread:
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
twitter.com
Also, because news sites are worthless and never cite their sources, here's the court document.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
Not sure if you meant to post this on /k/, but I'll bite.
From what I understand from previous Supreme Court and District Court rulings, the right to keep AND bear arms has been affirmed, meaning several things:
>can't have total bans on rifles, shotguns, or handguns
>can't make it functionally illegal to own a gun - ie. have permits but never issue them
>can't completely ban carry of any kind - if you can't CC, then OC must be allowed.
The issue is that the last point comes from another District Court, meaning that this might have two conflicting rulings across federal courts. If that's the case, then the Supreme Court might have to take the case, which is something I'd rather they'd not do. As much fun as it was to see the Supreme Court unanimously tell Massachusetts to go fuck itself with their taser/stun gun ban, I don't really trust the Supreme Court to make a good ruling right now.
Why can't liberals just leave my guns alone
When a gun owner shoot someone we need to ban all guns but when a black or Muslim person rapes a white women this somehow means we need more of them
>poe's law
...
wew lad
unless you want to talk about the history of civilian firearm ownership, this isn't exactly Veeky Forums.
I wish liberals (fiscal, secular liberals, "libertarians for welfare", NOT SJWs) would start being gun owners.
Their bohemian, unindoctrinated, dogma-free way of life can never spread if they remain the unarmed portion of the population.
That right page sounds like it was written by Hunter S Thompson
Law comes under the humanities, bro.
Call it a hunch, but I doubt the court is going to want to make any wide ranging ruling. I bet you anything that if this does go before SCOTUS, they'll make their ruling, whatever it is, as narrowly as possible to kick that can down the road as far as they can.
/k/ is worthless
Its from the Gun Fag Manifesto, a zine from the early 90's.
Basically /k/ before the internet.
If only my man Scalia was still alive. RIP sweet prince.
eat ass
Oh, then you should take that sticky's advise and take your modern day politics bullshit to /pol/
>please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago
it is you sir, who should be feasting on arse.
you should take the one and true sticky's advice and fuck off
>GCA of 68
>Brady Bill of 86
checks out bb
This has less to do with politics and more to do with the legality of it. Thus the reason why I posted the Court's document.
The law is supreme bby.
If people can make 8000 Hitler threads, I can make one about the Supreme Court's role in expanding the second amendment.
>get shrekt
traditionally a weapon would be open carried unless you had nefarious intent.
for some reason having the guns not visible makes people feel safer, I would prefer they be somewhere everyone can see them.
At the very least businesses and home owners have the right to keep them out of their property. And I dont think the second amendment can cover concealed carry as a fundamental right.
>And I dont think the second amendment can cover concealed carry as a fundamental right.
The trend with the courts (until this recent one at least) seems to be that you don't necessarily have to have concealed carry legal, but you can't make all types of carry legal - meaning if CC is completely banned, then OC must be legal. That's how Illinois was forced to make CC legal, IIRC.
meh, probably an activist judge
Why were the 90's so terrible with gun control, Veeky Forums?
UK, Canada, Australia, and the US all passed wide range gun control acts within the decade.
No good having the right to bear arms, when you cannot bear arms in public day-to-day life.
How is that no good? I was under the impression the right was in place to defend against tyranny, which is accomplished by merely having guns in your possession that you could access if the need arises. It's not there so you can shove a shotgun in your pants and go to taco bell.
Criminals are tyrranical in their own right.
Globalist coordination. National goverents are just a formality.
That fat shit didn't make a single correct decision on anything.
Guns are worthless. If you want to protect yourself from the government, you need an AA installation.
heller vs DC my man
so is paranoia of statistically unlikely crime.
literally what?
how are you being tyrranical to anyone by CC-ing?
that's sorta the entire point, carrying a gun without anyone knowing.
>Used to visit /k/ to talk of weapons and shiet.
>Now it's just American /pol/ board.
>Besides they suck at anything premodern anyway.
>American /pol/ hours comes to Veeky Forums
Jesus Christ.
Reported.
>announcing reports
dats against da rules
>Go to american website
>Go to the weapons and militaria section of an american website
>Be upset when they primarily talk about guns and gun politics
I'm not sure I get it.
>USED to be of weapons and shiet
>Now it's 100% gun /pol/itics.
I think it's because /k/unts became younger I suppose.
Hell, years ago, posting anime would lead you to calls of "go back to /a/" now "/ak/" is a fucking thing.