SCOTUS Justice John Roberts justifying Constitutional Carry?

[Insignificant bill]

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.

Well in our state Constitutional Carry eliminates any training and has no effect whatsoever on daily life. It's the same in the other states that have it. The arguments the States that violate the 2nd use are bogus and history proves it.

 

[Aim1]

The Supreme Court isn't going to "back" Constitutional Carry because that isn't the issue before the Court.

They will only provide a ruling on the strict issue brought before the Court.

That ruling may or may not strongly support the legal concept of Constitutional Carry.

Are you referring to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen because Constitutional Carry isn't part of that case.

However, a case pertaining to Constitutional Carry could someday reach SCOTUS and this is how it should go but I still don't see a majority of the justices ruling that Constitutional Carry is fine.

 

[Bfh_auto]

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 think so. The idea that felons don't have the right to self defense after they paid for their crime is despicable. I believe after an appropriate prison sentence is served, their rights should be the same as mine.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Are you referring to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen because Constitutional Carry isn't part of that case.

However, a case pertaining to Constitutional Carry could someday reach SCOTUS and this is how it should go but I still don't see a majority of the justices ruling that Constitutional Carry is fine.

Yes, that's what I am referring to.

Many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Supreme Court makes "sweeping" rulings over whatever the subject may be. This isn't true...they make rulings on the case immediately before them. The decision(s) they may make on such cases MAY have sweeping consequences, because they can be applied to other, similar, cases.

To do otherwise would likely overflow into the authority strictly granted to the other branches of the government.

If a case concerning Constitutional Carry DID make its way before the Court some day, then they would make a ruling on that based on it's own merits and arguments.

 

[Mousegun]

22 states have Constitutional Carry, if this case has a good outcome would that clear a path for citizens in states that don't have Constitutional carry to get it or?

If you are including Tennessee in the 22 count, drop it back to 21 because Tennessee has permitless carry. It is a twisted form of what would be real Constitutional carry in that there is a very wide variety of eligibility hurtles you have to meet to be even close to legal and even if you meet them, the door is still open to being detained and heavily questioned and maybe even arrested if the proper answers are not forthcoming. Permitless carry begins at age 21 unless you are active military or military retired.
Tennessee is known for taking small steps to an end when it comes to firearms. Some day, full Constitutional carry may get passed but, that day is not now.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

I have been a firearms instructor in the law enforcement arena for many years. And, over the years, I've cringed at some folks that I've had to sign off on as "qualified" to carry firearms on duty -- and we have some pretty good (not great except for tactical teams) training... But the political reality is that we don't fire officers solely because they're not very good at the gun thingy.

And I live in a state where one can get fingerprinted and obtain a CPL with ZERO training required. And, not only is open carry legal here, it's not all that uncommon, depending on where one lives within the state. Yet -- we just don't have issues with all these "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 .." types.

The problem with regulating is that it's gonna impact everyone across the board; you simply can't put the same restrictions on experienced, trained folk that you do on the new people. And -- the big thing is that training has become for many, prohibitively expensive. Some states, and many groups that offer the state-sponsored training, do it for profit. And that's simply not right.

Liberty can be not without risks. Even to the innocents and uninvolved.

But you cannot legislate common sense, and you really cannot fix stupid. And concealed carry (or open carry) should not be legal for only those that can afford it.

 

[bassjam]

Yes, that's what I am referring to.

Many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Supreme Court makes "sweeping" rulings over whatever the subject may be. This isn't true...they make rulings on the case immediately before them. The decision(s) they may make on such cases MAY have sweeping consequences, because they can be applied to other, similar, cases.

To do otherwise would likely overflow into the authority strictly granted to the other branches of the government.

If a case concerning Constitutional Carry DID make its way before the Court some day, then they would make a ruling on that based on it's own merits and arguments.

That's exactly it, they only rule on the case before them and in my recent memory at least the SC tends to take a narrow focus even on that rule vs a broad view. Now the Majority Opinion may make suggestions to the legality of Constitutional Carry, but that "opinion" carries no legal weight. Just like the dissenting opinion will argue why the ruling was wrong, but it carries no legal weight.

 

[AlexanderA]

They will only provide a ruling on the strict issue brought before the Court.

This is true, but some of the Justices may be tempted to elaborate in their opinions with "dicta" that go beyond the immediate issue. These dicta may be persuasive in the lower courts, especially because the SC has been largely silent on guns. You can be sure that the official decision, as well as any dissenting and concurring opinions, will be carefully parsed by activists on both sides. I daresay that reading the tea leaves (that come out of this case) will become a cottage industry.

 

[armydog]

I think so. The idea that felons don't have the right to self defense after they paid for their crime is despicable. I believe after an appropriate prison sentence is served, their rights should be the same as mine.

I'll go along with that as long as they were non violent felons. I'd even go for a set time period for those who were just young idiots who didn't use weapons. New sentencing would specify on a case by case basis. Just my take. But if you can't properly wear shorts or pants and have 10 inches of your underwear showing.... automatic lifetime ban. lol

 

[Old Dog]

Changing the laws pertaining to prohibited persons has nothing to do with this case.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Your concern is VERY much true as it relates to the Executive Branch. Every time Congress allows their authority to be eroded, by letting the POTUS issue executive actions that change how laws are enforced, it effectively leaves the fate people up to the whims of tyrants.

Fortunately, this is less true as it relates to the Judicial Branch. As case law is established it creates a precedence. Precedence seems to have a much longer standing effect that is not as easily manipulated by individuals. It's not to say that activist judges don't exist and that they don't have an impact, but it seems like once precedent is established, it's much more difficult to alter this due to the rather rigorous process for establishing it.

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.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Deleted

 

[Old Dog]

Warning, Will Robinson, warning! Thread drift alert!

 

[rust collector]

The issue of disqualification for a felony is a valid discussion topic in a thread of its own, but is not relevant to the original post. If we can track the OP, the thread may live on.

 

[armydog]

I have strong disagreement with this. Those who have been duly convicted of violent crimes, whom we believe have not been rehabilitated to the point we trust them to walk among us without reoffending, should not be released.

Im not on board with just giving rights back if you've completed your stint in prison.

Im for a case by case basis. I grew up fighting all the time as a kid. I had to get permission from a judge to join the army from being on probation. Today those types of street fights are a felony. You think everyone who gets into a street fight should be disarmed? You can be pro cookie cutter approach, but I'd say give some people a second look... if they proved they earned it.

 

[armydog]

The issue of disqualification for a felony is a valid discussion topic in a thread of its own, but is not relevant to the original post. If we can track the OP, the thread may live on.

Ok... i posted that last one without reading this one yet.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

The issue of disqualification for a felony is a valid discussion topic in a thread of its own, but is not relevant to the original post. If we can track the OP, the thread may live on.

I say lock it down. Obviously we can't be trusted to be responsible adults despite having a perfectly friendly and respectful debate.

 

[rust collector]

As you wish.

Thread titles are an important way of locating discussions of interest. When the topic drifts, those who may be interested in the off topic discussion don't know it is there. That is why we try to stick to the original subject matter.