The Campaign For DA

6.09.2016

Gun News




So what's the bottom line? If that decision were to apply to the whole country then the States have all the power. A State wants to ban all concealed carry? Fine. A State wants to put extreme limits on concealed carry? Fine. A State wants to let everyone conceal carry without any regulation? Fine.

This is a perfect example of a court case which will get groups like the Tea Party up in arms when it really supports their basic philosophical tenet: State's rights.


14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, nonsense, Barry. No Tea Partier has ever suggested that 10th Amendment state's rights should trump 2nd Amendment individual rights. That would be as dumb as the 9th Circuit saying that California could ban criminal defendants from having counsel per 6th Amendment, because, you know, it would be a state decision in state court.

Anonymous said...

States Rights are those not enumerated by the Second Amendment, among others… you know that Constitution thing.

Anonymous said...

3 other Federal Appellate Courts have already ruled with the same decision. So this is nothing new or special. Only the 7th Circuit ruled differently. But because there is a conflict it eventually sets up a challenge to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that right now.

Anonymous said...

I would agree it's a State power. For many years, Texas was actually very restrictive about people's abilities to have access to a pistol in their vehicle, let alone on their persons. Just an example of what states have been doing for decades. Not a big news item to me, actually.

wordkyle said...

Tsk, tsk. You're playing with people's minds. "State's rights?" That court made a broad pronouncement undermining a constitutional right. And Tea Party "basic philosophical tenet?" Serious misunderstanding of that group, counselor.

Anonymous said...

You copulate with the dog on the porch long enough- he is going to bite.

Not Sam

Anonymous said...

What about a state banning 1A right to speech or free exercise? Or 5A taking?

Anonymous said...

I'm curious if you'd be so cavalier in your response if this decision was for an appeal involving the 6th Amendment.

Unlikely you'd proclaim "fine" if each state got to dictate its citizens 6th amendment right, right?

Stay Classy

Anonymous said...

2:48

Since free speech is clearly in 1A, the states cannot restrict.

You seem to be missing the point that if a particular right is not part of the constitution, as in this ruling, then states rights kick in.

Bear said...

States have the right to legislate all issues not already spelled out in the constitution.

Hard to believe that all these law dog types can't get a grasp on that.

Really, I guess, it's not that hard to believe. Elitist attitudes.

Anonymous said...

Read Callahan's dissent, starting on page 59 in the above-tweeted link, and then read the response, starting on page 49. This decision is nothing more than politically-motivated sidestepping of the real issue. If you ban concealed carry, and you ban open carry what is left? In that scenario, there is no remaining right to bear arms, or at least no right to bear arms effectively in defense of one's self in public. According to this document, they are not even sure whether the Second Amendment grants that right anyway.

Anonymous said...

Then why do states have to pass laws for open carry if we had that right all along?

Anonymous said...

Don't get confused on this issue folks or get caught up in the legal mumbo jumbo. We are in a war over the 2nd which the left clearly wants to ban outright. Liberals constantly use terms like "common sense gun laws" but the ultimate goal is the repeal of the 2nd and a gun confiscation. Don't forget that and be ready to fight and die for it.

wordkyle said...

402 - You make a good point. This court decided that the 2nd Amendment only applies within one's own home.