SCOTUS Justice John Roberts justifying Constitutional Carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My only fear is that the pen that grants in Consitutionally for the nation as a whole can be rescinded just as rapidly by the next pen in power.

I may be looking at this the wrong way, and what we have now is a crazyquilt patchwork, but it takes 50 states acting on their own to abolish it nationwide under the status quo.
 
This would appear to be support of Constitutional Carry.
In my opinion words mean things. Wouldn't a literal interpretation of the phrase "Constitutional Carry" suggest no restrictions whatsoever since the Constitution didn't place any restrictions on firearms? The last time I checked neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights have any limitations for age, criminal history or type of weapon. Is that a phrase gun folks really want to continue to push?
 
I can’t imagine the Court going for Constitutional Carry because of federalism. Most states are shall issue, some are permit-less, and some are may issue. The middle ground between permit-less and may-issue is shall-issue. SCOTUS most often looks for the middle ground. I do not perceive Robert’s words to in any way be a hint. He indicated needing to get a permit to exercise a right seemed odd. And it is odd, and it is also was well established policy in most states and the Court is not going to create chaos. However, I could see Roberts pushing for open carry — the one you generally do not need a permit to exercise the right.
 
At a minimum I'm fairly sure shall issue permits will be the law of the land for those states not blessed with Constitutional Carry. As one of the justices pointed out, the Bill of Rights should not be denied by the whim of individual government beaurocrats on a case by case basis, assuming that citizen is law abiding.
 
Not much chance they will go all the way to "constitutional carry." But it looks as though they will convert "may issue" into "shall issue" wherever this exists.That in itself is huge.
Yeah I mean I live in Washington DC and even we are "Shall Issue" and I doubt that would be the case it the courts hadn't knocked down anti 2a laws multiple time in the city.
 
The problem (from the Court's point of view) is that "may issue" depends on the capricious decisions of bureaucrats. "Shall issue" takes license-issuing out of the subjective judgement of bureaucrats, but strict "objective" criteria can be imposed at the legislative level (not individually). So I can see New York losing this case, and then turning around and imposing all sorts of onerous restrictions, such as training requirements, fees, etc., before a "shall issue" license can actually be issued. Kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing.
 
No matter the final ruling(s) and how they are interpreted by the lower courts - NYC and the like will bite, scratch, kick in opposition, forever. They will find whatever it takes to make it as impossible as they can for anyone outside of law enforcement to carry a weapon.

In NJ may issue means no issue. Just to BUY a handgun you have to get two references to sign state forms attesting to your suitability for handgun ownership. To me that is seriously defective as a constitutional rights matter, but what do I know. When I lived there this inhibited me from buying what I wanted because I did not want to bother my friends yet again.

As far as constitutional carry - the very definition is not settled by my observations. Every state will have laws that attempt to define it. Here in Texas, a state not known for overly restrictive gun laws, the recent change allowing permitless carry creates two classes of carriers. Those with licenses and those without. As a licensed carrier I can go armed to many places that an unlicensed person cannot. The difference is who has gone to the trouble to submit an application, get fingerprinted, investigated, take and pass written and live fire qualifications. And who has not. Still, a right is a right.
 
PA has no type of permit-less carry. I have and will always have a PA license because of its reciprocity agreements. I travel to Ohio every three months to see my son and his family. My PA license is good in OH. I also have an AZ license which fills in some of the states that have no reciprocity with PA. Still I cannot carry in the horrible states that recognize no other state permits. I have three of them that border on PA to deal with: NY, NJ, MD. My solution is to not enter those states. I don’t need anything they have.
 
In my opinion, even the states that have shall issue have infringed upon the 2A. It may be that the precedent for some states has been set with shall issue for some time now, but from what I read concerning the 2A, they just happen to have gotten away with infringing on the 2A too. I dont give those states a pass just cause they're shall issue. The 2A says what it says.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, even the states that have shall issue have infringed upon the 2A. It may be that the precedent for some states has been set with shall issue for some time now, but from what I read concerning the 2A, they just happen to have gotten away with infringing on the 2A too. I dont give those states a pass just cause they're shall issue. The 2A says what it says.
Exactly. This is the kind of “down the rabbit hole” nonsense that results from trying to “interpret” the meaning of perfectly clear phrases like “shall not be infringed”.
 
Eh, at this early stage, all we can do is more preaching to the choir. We know what we need to see, and we know what we want to see. Too early to read the tea leaves.

While I think we all agree that this case may have major implications for the future of concealed carry, particularly in the non-"shall issue" states, I also think we should not sit by trying to figure out the underlying "code" in every remark made, or questions asked, by the justices. We've been hopeful before, only to see our hopes dashed, and we've been skeptical before only to be pleasantly surprised. In other words, with this Supreme Court, my belief is that it's just a waste of time trying to predict the court's decision or the impact of the decision, until the ink is dry on the majority opinion.
 
The permit is good to have for reasons of reciprocity with states that do not have permitless carry. The Constitutional Carry bill pending in the SC Senate retains the permit system for that reason, especially since the neighboring states require permits.

Similar to TX, an AZ permit has other benefits within the state as compared to not having a CCP.

Yes, reciprocity with other states is also a benefit when traveling in those states, too.
 
So I can see New York losing this case, and then turning around and imposing all sorts of onerous restrictions, such as training requirements, fees, etc., before a "shall issue" license can actually be issued. Kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing.

They're going to have a hard time with the inordinate fees thingy given the ruling (another case, I can't remember where or when but SC GOP used it recently to rescend fees here in this state) stating that requiring fees, of any kind, put undue financial stress on those less financially able (often those that need a mean of self-protection in the first place) to pay for a permit.

No more fees here in SC when the partial Constitutional Carry Bill passed which, basically, is open carry for permit holders. Permit holders still have to pass a very very basic class.

I suspect this will be a framework type blueprint for what is coming down the pipe for a lot of states if what is coming that I think is coming based upon these transcripts. Same line of questioning .... its almost like some of the states that rushed to pass open carry (in the past 24 months) somehow anticipated what was coming down the road in the SCOTUS.

For anyone interested, the Bill passed here in SC is about as good as it is going to get if it goes nationwide. I'm not against Constitutional Open Carry, Permitless Open Carry ... but I'll add this caveat. I taught basic pistol for a lot of years. Over 1400 students I signed-off-on ... about 75 that I didn't. IMHO there are a lot of people out there wanting to carry thwt absolutely should not be carrying. There are people out there mismatched between ability and tool ... meaning first time shooters, had never once fired a firearm, came to the class with 44 mags and 357 mags and some came with these little Lorcen Saturday Night Specials in 25 or 32 ... it was nuts sometimes. So me, personally, imho, and this is a slippery slope, I get it I do ... but not everyone should just be able to walk in, buy a gun, stow it in their purse or pocket or on their waistband .... and walk out of the store open carrying.

That's mho.

Point being ... I think the SCOTUS is going to fall somewhere in the purview of what South Carolina has done. Get a permit, doesn't cost you anything as far as the state permit is concerned and instructors are teaching the classes for anywhere from $35-$115 dollars depending up the level of training you want ... but get the permit, show some ability and acuity ... and then carry.

Every state should, at a very minimum, be willing to do that. That's where SCOTUS is going to rule imho. Too many states saw this coming.
 
The problem (from the Court's point of view) is that "may issue" depends on the capricious decisions of bureaucrats. "Shall issue" takes license-issuing out of the subjective judgement of bureaucrats, but strict "objective" criteria can be imposed at the legislative level (not individually). So I can see New York losing this case, and then turning around and imposing all sorts of onerous restrictions, such as training requirements, fees, etc., before a "shall issue" license can actually be issued. Kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Which is more or less what Illinois did after Mcdonald v. Chicago.
 
Just a quick sidebar; This forum has some of the most intelligent members I've seen in such places. I appreciate everyone's input here and it's obvious the posters here are very knowledgeable regarding your local, state and national regulations. I've been to other boards and read mostly ranting and raving which does not advance anyone's understanding let alone education. This goes not only for this topic but almost every other topic I've either read or posted to. Thank you all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top