'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

Let us all pay attention to SCOTUS decision in few months time and this decision will overrule state gun laws.

The comment came few weeks ago during oral arguments in *McDonald v. Chicago, a case over the legality of Chicago's handgun ban. Five justices appeared ready to strike down that ban, echoing a nearly identical 2008 case, Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the court threw out a ban in the nation's capital, citing the Second Amendment.

After McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS will re-aim and struck down California gun law.

Pro 2A
 
deafaussie said:
Let us all pay attention to SCOTUS decision in few months time and this decision will overrule state gun laws.

The comment came few weeks ago during oral arguments in *McDonald v. Chicago, a case over the legality of Chicago's handgun ban. Five justices appeared ready to strike down that ban, echoing a nearly identical 2008 case, Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the court threw out a ban in the nation's capital, citing the Second Amendment.

After McDonald v. Chicago, SCOTUS will re-aim and struck down California gun law.

Pro 2A
Click to expand...

*salute to flag*
 
Interesting topic. I wonder, though, if there is a fine line one cannot cross when it comes to bearing arms openly. For example, what if some people were playing a baseball game in a park, and an argument ensued. It grew until one of the people left in a huff, and returned shortly thereafter packing a six-shooter. Isn't that intimidation, and shouldn't that person be told to leave?
 
Beowulf said:
Interesting topic. I wonder, though, if there is a fine line one cannot cross when it comes to bearing arms openly. For example, what if some people were playing a baseball game in a park, and an argument ensued. It grew until one of the people left in a huff, and returned shortly thereafter packing a six-shooter. Isn't that intimidation, and shouldn't that person be told to leave?
Click to expand...

if that person returned with a firearm after argument even though he's not gonna shoot.... yes he will be criminally charged and I hope he gets punished to the fullest extent of the law because he set a very poor example for community as law-abiding, responsible armed citizen.
 
Jiro said:
if that person returned with a firearm after argument even though he's not gonna shoot.... yes he will be criminally charged and I hope he gets punished to the fullest extent of the law because he set a very poor example for community as law-abiding, responsible armed citizen.
Click to expand...

Plus I don't think that is going to happen to too many people who went thru and got their OC/CC certification.
 
Tousi said:
Plus I don't think that is going to happen to too many people who went thru and got their OC/CC certification.
Click to expand...

the surprising fact is that.... even in a gun-friendly state... not a lot of people are packing some heat... and that's good! cuz you don't know for sure if anybody around you is packing one or not! that is a great deterrent
 
Jiro said:
if that person returned with a firearm after argument even though he's not gonna shoot.... yes he will be criminally charged and I hope he gets punished to the fullest extent of the law because he set a very poor example for community as law-abiding, responsible armed citizen.
Click to expand...

Interesting. If that person returns with a concealed weapon and the police are called, and they find it on him, he would be charged? Jeez, my head is spinning...What if the argument occurred while he was carrying a concealed weapon, and the others feel intimidated by him and the police were called? Is that a whole new can of worms, or what? lol
 
Beowulf said:
Interesting. If that person returns with a concealed weapon and the police are called, and they find it on him, he would be charged? Jeez, my head is spinning...What if the argument occurred while he was carrying a concealed weapon, and the others feel intimidated by him and the police were called? Is that a whole new can of worms, or what? lol
Click to expand...

well - if the person returns with CCW... then they do not know he's carrying a firearm. so why would people call a cop on him? for what reason?
 
Jiro said:
well - if the person returns with CCW... then they do not know he's carrying a firearm. so why would people call a cop on him? for what reason?
Click to expand...

Some people have a knack for spotting concealed weapons. It only takes one person to spread the word throughout a crowd. What then? I am curious.
 
Beowulf said:
Some people have a knack for spotting concealed weapons. It only takes one person to spread the word throughout a crowd. What then? I am curious.
Click to expand...

same as above (post #26) if he returned with CCW after argument.

and of course.... he's welcome to argue his case at court. chance is - he will be found guilty.
 
I wonder because when the Admenment was written in the Consitution for the rights to bear arms was because the English were escaping the King and wanted to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from further counter-attacks but in nowadays, it is not about that anymore so does that make this Admendment fitting for today's times?
 
Tousi said:
Plus I don't think that is going to happen to too many people who went thru and got their OC/CC certification.
Click to expand...

oh I just noticed one thing - there's no OC permit. Anybody can OC but you need a permit for CCW.
 
shel90 said:
I wonder because when the Admenment was written in the Consitution for the rights to bear arms was because the English were escaping the King and wanted to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from further counter-attacks but in nowadays, it is not about that anymore so does that make this Admendment fitting for today's times?
Click to expand...

that specific interpretation of Amendment 2 was already settled & clarified at Supreme Court - Heller v. District of Columbia. We won. the DC gun ban was struck down.

Now it's McDonald v. Chicago. It's still in process. Chance is - the Chicago gun ban will be struck down... and then it will be a cascading effect for all other states/cities that has gun ban like NYC.

Anti-gunner's reason
The court's landmark 5 to 4 decision split along ideological grounds and wiped away years of lower court decisions that had held that the intent of the amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, was to tie the right of gun possession to militia service.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court's reason
The Second Amendment, Scalia said, "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
Click to expand...

source - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html
 
shel90 said:
I wonder because when the Admenment was written in the Consitution for the rights to bear arms was because the English were escaping the King and wanted to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from further counter-attacks but in nowadays, it is not about that anymore so does that make this Admendment fitting for today's times?
Click to expand...

That is not the reason for the amendment. Notice it talks about raising a Militia as well. It's more to do with the states being seperate.
 
shel90 said:
I wonder because when the Admenment was written in the Consitution for the rights to bear arms was because the English were escaping the King and wanted to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from further counter-attacks but in nowadays, it is not about that anymore so does that make this Admendment fitting for today's times?
Click to expand...

The idea is that if Americans ever need to overthrow a dictatorship, corrupted government or loosen the hold of a foreign government over the people-- they can take matters into their own hands and revolt.

One only have to look at Mexico to see how many revolutions they had...
 
another one -
In 56 pages of the 64-page opinion, Scalia analyzed the historical and grammatical underpinnings of the amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Scalia drew on years of scholarly research to conclude that the amendment's opening clause about the need for a ready militia was only one of the reasons that the Framers recognized what he argued was a preexisting right to arms.

"Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms?" Scalia wrote. "It fits perfectly."

Stevens rebutted Scalia in 46 pages of his own, and the two engaged in a line-by-line battle over the meaning of the amendment. "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote, adding that it meant "no more than that."
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top