Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case

[armoredman]

I'm not so sure, as a few of the justices have made feelings plain about the 2A being held as a "second class right". I think it might go our way much more than we expect it too. It's scary enough for the anti rights politicians to keep hammering on the "pack the court" drivel. I think there are a few 2A cases slated for the next session, so we shall see, we shall see. We didn't really expect to win Heller, either.

[wellthought]

We all have the right to carry according to the 2nd Amendment; however, various states have decided to remove that right and then SELL it back to us. Crazy. I hope SCOTUS knocks down all CCW licenses and requires CONSTITUTIONAL carry in EVERY state!

[tripingram]

New England has started to go Constitutional carry, but MA is going to be a hold out, we have some of the largest firearm makers in state but they could care less if the laws they impose would affect them.

[armoredman]

I believe we are now up to 23 or 24 states with Constitutional Carry? I might be wrong, but it is almost half. Once we past the halfway mark, then it becomes much easier for SCOTUS to agree with is - hard to say over half the country is wrong, at least when dealing with rational people.

[Skookum]

I'd argue limiting the ability to carry concealed by permit is a direct infringement on it's face. These are rights not privileges we get if we meet the criteria for a permit.

My guess is that'd be a losing argument.  In a republic based on ordered liberty, all natural rights are subject to reasonable regulation.  Regulating a right out of existence, however, is unreasonable and seems to be what the courts regard as an infringement.  May-issue jurisdictions have essentially regulated the right to carry out of existence for most of their citizens.


As I recall, concealed carry case law, what little exists, was established in the 19th century in state courts, which consistently ruled there is no right to carry concealed.  At the time concealed carry was regarded as sneaky and suspicious.  Today it is carrying openly that is likely to cause a commotion — what is out of sight of the gun hater is out of his mind.  This is why the 7th Circuit, when ordering Illinois to make carry lawful, gave the state the ability to regulate carry by permit and by limiting carry to concealed only.

[Skookum]

I strongly disagree that progressive enclaves love permits. They hate guns in any form and put every roadblock they can to prevent people from even having them, never mind carrying them. Maryland requires training and a permit to even purchase a gun. It cost about $200 just for permission. Boggles my mind how anyone thinks that isn't a clear infringement.   

The gun haters' roadblocks are the permit processes, which allow them to claim they honor the 2nd Amendment while denying most carry permit applications.  Exorbitant permit fees and training requirements price the poor out of their right to carry and should not be allowed.  My state, WA, has no training requirement for a concealed piztol license (or for constitutional open carry), and our firearms accident rate is in line with states that do require training.

[cntrydawwwg]

I strongly disagree that progressive enclaves love permits. They hate guns in any form and put every roadblock they can to prevent people from even having them, never mind carrying them. Maryland requires training and a permit to even purchase a gun. It cost about $200 just for permission. Boggles my mind how anyone thinks that isn't a clear infringement.   

The gun haters' roadblocks are the permit processes, which allow them to claim they honor the 2nd Amendment while denying most carry permit applications.  Exorbitant permit fees and training requirements price the poor out of their right to carry and should not be allowed.  My state, WA, has no training requirement for a concealed piztol license (or for constitutional open carry), and our firearms accident rate is in line with states that do require training.

But yet, WA. does not recognize a permit from MT. because we allow 18 year old ADULTS to get a permit. [emoji6]
     Now we are also constitutional conceal carry (always have allowed open carry) as all states should be IMO. But I guess  my point is, if I can pass an FBI background check, I should be able to at least carry in any state that requires a permit.

[Gunnerdad80]

I’ve been trying to keep up with this case on the YouTube second amendment channels. Definitely interested in the outcome of this case.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

If we had courts with judges that follow the constitution as written we wouldn't be here at all. There's that part in there about being endowed with "certain unalienable rights" which is the disclaimer the founders put in that says they can't touch this. Yet here we are.

[Skookum]

If we had courts with judges that follow the constitution as written we wouldn't be here at all.

I'm all for an originalist — and, to the extent practicable, literal — interpretation of the Constitution.  I view a constitution as a contract between a people and their government, and under common contract law no judge may add language to which the parties never agreed, neither may a judge expunge language to which the parties did agree.  Amendment by consent of the parties is the only lawful way alter a contract.

Unfortunately, supposed conservatives in the Senate tend to overwhelmingly consent to activist judges appointed by anti-Constitution executives under the concept that a President deserves to get the appointments he wants.  When my children were toddlers they could offer better advice than this.

That said, under natural law and right is subject to reasonable regulation (Jud Campbell, 2017, "Natural Rights and the First Amendment," Yale Law Journal 127(2):246–321); e.g.:

"Since natural rights were subject to governmental regulation, we might wonder why the Founders bothered amending the Constitution to include any of them. Indeed, some Federalists made exactly this argument when opposing an enumeration of rights. The purpose of declaring rights, John Jay explained, was to establish that 'certain enumerated rights belonged to the people, and were not comprehended in the royal prerogative.' Under a republican government, however, all legislative power was exercised by elected representatives, thus obviating any need to enumerate natural rights. Though puzzling today, Jay’s argument had considerable merit. Moreover, even among those who advocated for enumerating rights, many thought that declarations were hortatory, serving as a reminder, both to the people and to their government, of the reasons for instituting government and of the terms of the social contract and constitution."

And:

"The pliability of natural rights … fostered a dynamic constitutional culture at the Founding. Natural liberty could be restrained, as William Blackstone put it, only when 'necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.' Whenever natural liberty 'is, by the laws of the state, further restrained than is necessary and expedient for the general advantage,' St. George Tucker declared in 1796, 'a state of civil slavery commences immediately.' Steeped in this tradition, the Founders virulently contested the scope of all sorts of governmental powers … ."
[/size]
[/size]Thus, regulation of natural rights in the US has always been possible.  But, any such regulation should be reasonable so as to not eliminate the right, and be in the public's best interests.  Finally, tampering with any of rights enumerated in the Constitution should be undertaken only with the greatest of care.

[BarkingAnt]

Recently some op-eds on this subject trace roots of carrying arms in England and early colonies. Apparently Massachusetts in 1692 passed laws against "going armed offensively" (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/10/07/professors-brief-in-scotus-carry-case-a-much-needed-history-lesson-n50682#). Beyond that Massachusetts seemed to recognize the right to carry a firearm on a person.

Does anybody know what constitutes "going armed offensively" or can give an example of one doing that?

[Smitty79]

While I don't think it's going to happen, I'd love to see the SCOTUS come out with if may legally own a firearm, you may open or concealed carry it.  That's what the founders intended.    It's also important to remember that the constitution specifically comprehends private ownership of artillery.   Look at the words about letters of marque and reprisal.

[Atomic Punk]

The Supreme Court will hear the New York carry case on November 3.  You can get a link to listen to the argument in real time at the following link on the Supreme Court website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

[tomboyjr]

While I don't think it's going to happen, I'd love to see the SCOTUS come out with if may legally own a firearm, you may open or concealed carry it.  That's what the founders intended.    It's also important to remember that the constitution specifically comprehends private ownership of artillery.   Look at the words about letters of marque and reprisal.

 As much as I'd like to see a lot less restrictions on gun 'ownership', I still think a competency class should be part of getting a carry permit. Way too many times I see careless handling of firearms. I do some buying,selling and trading, and the first thing I do is check the chamber on a gun I'm looking at. I'm still shocked at the number of people who will show up with a gun for sale, or trade, that has rounds in it. They usually say, "bleep I forgot it was loaded", or "I didnt know it was loaded".   But its a common sense thing. Heaven forbid the potential buyer just pulls the trigger when they pick it up.

[Grendel]

There should be no restrictions on possession or carry of a firearm. There are no grounds for placing any limits on how a person may exercise this right.

It is a 'right', not a privilege and is not subject to any limit that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.