Federal Court Rules you do NOT have right to carry firearms

[RobertNashville]

[b]Federal Court Rules you do NOT have right to carry firearms[/b]

[size=4][font=times new roman,times,serif]That’s right. The 2nd and 4th Federal Court of Appeals have heard arguments dealing with the carrying of firearms outside of the home and one has ruled it is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right.

In both [url="http://www.examiner.com/article/concealed-carry-gun-restrictions-upheld-as-2-courts-raced-to-rule"]New York and Maryland[/url], where the lawsuits were brought, the states have enacted draconian permit systems that favor the wealthy and well connected. While the rest of us must ASK to exercise our constitutional right a la Oliver Twist....

...Now, both of these cases will undoubtedly go before the Supreme Court to be decided definitively. To all the readers who [i]claim[/i] they are pro gun, yet voted for Obama I wonder if you will be hoping as much as I, that the high court hears these cases before one of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by_the_majority"]Heller Five[/url] steps down. I mean, you keep telling me that Obama is so pro gun, I wonder if you would like the fate of the Second Amendment to rest in the hands of Kagan or [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/sotomayor-targets-guns-now/?page=all"]Sotomayor[/url]?[/font][/size]


LINK: [url="http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/federal-court-rules-you-do-not-have-right-to-carry-firearms/"]http://gunowners.wor...carry-firearms/[/url]

[Oh Shoot]

Nothing changed, just ruled that the states of NY and MD can set their own carry laws, an affirmation of states' rights in that regard.

Is there a state that would [i]not[/i] agree with that? Think SCOTUS would make all states (and DC) allow constitutional carry, or even make them "shall issue"? I think not.

- OS Edited November 30, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

If I understand the rulings, these go beyond whether a state can regulate but rather that a person has no individual right to carry a firearm at all.

It may be a bit subtle but there is a difference, I believe, between acknowledging that you have a right to do something but apply regulations VS saying you don't have a right to do this "thing" at all but we may let you if....

I think these two rulings are showing the weakness in the two recent favorable SCOTUS decisions.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354310089' post='853028']
....It may be a bit subtle but there is a difference, I believe, between acknowledging that you have a right to do something but apply regulations VS saying you don't have a right to do this "thing" at all but we may let you if....[/quote]

Well, any number of states already agree that you have no right to carry, but we may let you if...

Including TN.

So I repeat, I see no change.

If we here ever get partial (open) or full (open and concealed) constitutional carry [u]rights[/u], it will granted by the state of TN, not the federal government.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354310322' post='853033']Well, any number of states already agree that you have no right to carry, but we may let you if...

Including TN.[/quote]
That's true if you are talking about the TN legislature but the TN Constitution clearly reflects and supports the 2A right to keep [u]and[/u] bear arms; perhaps even more strongly than the U.S. 2A - however, [i][b]WE [/b][/i]have let politicians assume power not granted by the documents they have sworn allegiance to uphold and that's our fault.

Should SCOTUS ever rule, as these two appellate courts did, that no individual right to bear arms exists I believe it will mean a huge change as any legal standing we have to seek a restoration of our full 2A rights will be gone.

Edited November 30, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1354310927' post='853039']
That's true if you are talking about the TN legislature but the TN Constitution clearly reflects and supports the 2A right to keep [u]and[/u] bear arms; perhaps even more strongly than the U.S. 2A - however, [i][b]WE [/b][/i]have let politicians assume power not granted by the documents they have sworn allegiance to uphold and that's our fault.
[/quote]

No winkie appropriate methinks. The unlawful carry statute is clearly unconstitutional on the face of it according to the TN Constitution, unless the state can clearly prove that legislating carry prevents crime -- which of course it cannot.

Another case of getting the government we deserve. I agree fully with that.

Freedom never grows as a bureaucracy does, it always becomes more restricted, in every nation in every time. A certain degree of that is necessary so that people may live in groups without continual chaos, but the restrictions always become disproportionate to optimal societal functionality.

- OS

Edited November 30, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Spiffy]

I'm not sure it could ever be argued that it is a right. Rights are something you can never have taken away. They can take away your right to own a gun and your right to vote, so are these rights or privileges?

[RobertNashville]

There are no rights that are absolute nor did the founders say there were; they specifically allowed for any of our rights, even the right to life can be taken away with due process.

What should not happen is for politicians to exert power to infringe or discard rights without due process but that is exactly what we have allowed to happen (and in fact, many, like Sara Brady, have asked for).

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Spiffy' timestamp='1354313118' post='853060']
I'm not sure it could ever be argued that it is a right. Rights are something you can never have taken away. They can take away your right to own a gun and your right to vote, so are these rights or privileges?
[/quote]

Semantics. If you can't exercise a right, you don't de facto have it, regardless of what the federal or state constitution may say. Indeed in both documents, our firearm rights are clearly stated, yet in both cases they are denied.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It becomes a right when you exert it, when you have to. I think the Founders intended the right to keep and bear
arms had very little to do with crimes, more on the order of defending yourself against a tyrannical government,
and including self defense. Arguing a state's right to tax or restrict should be a different argument, altogether.

That Federal Court won't be the deciding factor, but more of the problem. It is part of the government and has shown
it's ability to impose tyranny more than once.

[DaveTN]

Nothing new here. The SCOTUS already split the baby in half. You have a right to keep arms, but the state will determine where and when you can bear them. They really can’t rule any other way.