2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Federal Court Rules - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50525274]Open Carry is amazing, and better than Conceal carry. Not because you can or should open carry, but because when you conceal carry and it accidentally sticks out of your shirt when you bend over or something, it won't be considered improper exhibition of a firearm. In a conceal carry only state, if that happens and some flake calls the police and they show up, it's going to be up to the officer if it was exhibition or not. You might get some by the book anti-gun rookie that'll take you to the CJC, or it might be some seasoned officer who laughs about how a dummy called the police over nothing with you after asking you some questions Open Carry makes conceal carrying a lot easier by being less stressful, basically[/QUOTE] I agree with your point, but there are places in the U.S. where openly carrying a firearm will get you some really dirty looks. I live right outside of D.C., and when I worked at a Starbucks my partners (and occasionally patrons) would get really concerned if a guy with a holstered gun walked into the store. Nobody ever said anything thankfully, but if a guy has gone through the necessary steps to get a firearm and be able to carry it openly in public, I don't see what the big deal is personally.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50526703]Yeah, I would think having one or the other should be mandatory, but both are unneeded. However, if I read it correctly, this ruling mostly influences where you can take a gun [public spaces] as opposed to having it concealed or not which is what I'm more interested in rather than concealed vs open. I don't think people need to carry a gun [I]everywhere.[/I][/QUOTE] No, this seems to be about may-issue vs shall-issue in a state without open carry, which the supreme court has ruled on before. This is just california judges being california judges.

Another reason to be glad California is way, way the hell over there. Out of all the things silly that get declared unconstitutional there, this passes? Incredibe.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50526703]Yeah, I would think having one or the other should be mandatory, but both are unneeded. However, if I read it correctly, this ruling mostly influences where you can take a gun [public spaces] as opposed to having it concealed or not which is what I'm more interested in rather than concealed vs open. I don't think people need to carry a gun [I]everywhere.[/I][/QUOTE] I don't see how both are unneeded. They're both laws that protect us. One law lets me defend my life by carrying a concealed firearm and the other protects my Liberty if by some accident someone sees my gun when I'm taking a piss in a public bathroom by mistake and wants start a panic and get me arrested for brandishing. And why don't you think someone who has gone through the grueling process of getting a pistol permit (at least California and NY where you have to undergo an investigation by your local sheriffs department and jump through a dozen hoops) should not be allowed to bring their concealed firearm where ever they please? Crimes can be committed literally anywhere. Restricting the places you can bring a legally registered and sanctioned firearm doesn't do anything. Bad guys don't follow the law all you do is hamper innocent people from potentially defending themselves. There are only a handful of places were an arguement against allowing CCW holders is even reasonable. But I honestly don't see why couldn't carry in 98% of situations especially when no one would even know.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

[QUOTE=Chonch;50527757]What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?[/QUOTE] The fact that it's written of a dated piece of parchment makes it difficult to understand. So difficult in fact that the SCOTUS hands down decisions based on interpreting this old ass document that runs our country.

[QUOTE=Chonch;50527757]What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?[/QUOTE] People who are scared of inanimate objects have a hard time comprehending things.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50527786]The fact that it's written of a dated piece of parchment makes it difficult to understand. So difficult in fact that the SCOTUS hands down decisions based on interpreting this old ass document that runs our country.[/QUOTE] Yeah, fuck freedom of speech and all those other things written on that dated old document and such, why should we have guidelines to what laws can't do anyway?

California has one of the weirdest courts in the entire US. So glad I don't live there.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50527786]The fact that it's written of a dated piece of parchment makes it difficult to understand. So difficult in fact that the SCOTUS hands down decisions based on interpreting this old ass document that runs our country.[/QUOTE] Without the Constitution, how do we determine whether a law is just? This old ass document is the legal backbone of our great nation, and if you want hefty strong rippling legal thighs, you need to have a strong backbone to support the weight.

[QUOTE=Chonch;50528225]Without the Constitution, how do we determine whether a law is just? This old ass document is the legal backbone of our great nation, and if you want hefty strong rippling legal thighs, you need to have a strong backbone to support the weight.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the SCOTUS has to interpret it to keep it applicable with the changing times. Laws and interpretations can change and be overturned with time

Good.

Another reason for California to be disallowed any say in anything political in this country. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50528255]Good.[/QUOTE] So you are okay with citizens open-carrying firearms on their hips in holsters?

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50528255]Good.[/QUOTE] Would you rather there not be a legal avenue to take that requires you to undergo some basic training to carry a weapon?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50528285]Another reason for California to be disallowed any say in anything political in this country.[/QUOTE] because they do things differently according to the wishes of the people living in that state?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50528322]because they do things differently according to the wishes of the people living in that state?[/QUOTE] If you're having gun problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a Ghost Gun ain't one.

[QUOTE=Falstad007;50526714]I agree with your point, but there are places in the U.S. where openly carrying a firearm will get you some really dirty looks. I live right outside of D.C., and when I worked at a Starbucks my partners (and occasionally patrons) would get really concerned if a guy with a holstered gun walked into the store. Nobody ever said anything thankfully, but if a guy has gone through the necessary steps to get a firearm and be able to carry it openly in public, I don't see what the big deal is personally.[/QUOTE] Yeah you will get some looks if you open carry for sure. Which is really funny to me. You would think in a country that has nearly double the number of civilian owned firearms per capita than the country with the second most that people wouldn't be so flakey around them

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50528246]Like I said, the SCOTUS has to interpret it to keep it applicable with the changing times. Laws and interpretations can change and be overturned with time[/QUOTE] But this isn't what the SCOTUS is for, there's a great deal of debate over the legislative power of the body (read [URL="https://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Dissents-Writings-Wittiest-Outspoken/dp/0895260530"]Scalia's Dissents[/URL] to get a mouthful of this). The SCOTUS is to address quandaries and legal conflicts that the Founders could not forsee, and draw from the Constitution to derive their solutions. They are not intended to actually change or make any laws; this is just a phenomenon of Justices' interpretations of their own power.

The Bill of Rights is meant to be fairly vague so that the interpretation can vary. And, speaking as a pro-gun person, I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50528285]Another reason for California to be disallowed any say in anything political in this country. [/QUOTE] I like how you preach about how much the Second Amendment should be upheld but clearly don't give a flying fuck about the First.

I'd like to hear thoughts on this article which I think provides a good argument on why leaving your gun at home is a better option than carrying it around in public [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/for-every-gun-used-in-self-defense-six-more-are-used-to-commit-a-crime/[/url]

I don't think the article makes a good arguement on why I wouldn't want to take my gun out with me. It contends that for every self defense situation that handguns are used in three criminal crimes (which is irrelevant) The only thing that tries to say that is when they compare injury to situations where a gun is introduced and where they aren't and tries to argue that the gun didn't make a significant impact. To that I say, I rather have the gun that trust my safety to the criminal. If I get hurt in the process of doing what I think is right so be it. But I don't want to be the guy who thought it was a better off complying with a criminals orders and end up in a stockroom somewhere being force fed drano and executed because I'm a witness to a robbery.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50529281]I'd like to hear thoughts on this article which I think provides a good argument on why leaving your gun at home is a better option than carrying it around in public [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/for-every-gun-used-in-self-defense-six-more-are-used-to-commit-a-crime/[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]Looking at what happened after people took action to prevent a crime, Hemenway and Solnik found that people were far better off either running away, or calling the cops if possible, rather than attempting to stop a crime with a gun. "Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not," they write.[/quote] LTC classes make the point that using a gun in self defense should be an absolute last resort in a life or death situation. If you can run, you should run. A License to Carry is not a license to kill. They make this very clear in the required coursework, even bringing up court cases where people who used their guns [I]lawfully[/I] in self defense were still left with six-figure legal fees. [quote]In a 2000 study,Hemenway and colleagues asked criminal court judges to read 35 accounts of gun owners who said they used their guns in self-defense in a national survey. In the judges' opinions, over half of these gun uses were probably illegal.[/quote] When I took the course with my dad awhile back, the way they taught us was basically that the decision to use your gun to defend yourself should come down to would I rather be killed, or possibly in debt/prison? If you don't know how to handle a gun, or when you have the actual lawful right to use one in defense, you [I]shouldn't[/I] be carrying one. Go out and get a license so you at least know the details, even if you don't ever end up carrying. (I don't even have a pistol)

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50529340] But I don't want to be the guy who thought it was a better off complying with a criminals orders and end up in a stockroom somewhere being force fed drano and executed because I'm a witness to a robbery.[/QUOTE] The fact that you even think this is a reasonable thing to be afraid of happening just highlights how disconnected you are from reality. Both violent and property crime are down year after year - the only experience you'll ever have to use your gun in is petty muggers - and is $20 in cash and the hassle of canceling your card really, really worth another human life?

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50529340]I don't think the article makes a good arguement on why I wouldn't want to take my gun out with me. It contends that for every self defense situation that handguns are used in three criminal crimes (which is irrelevant) The only thing that tries to say that is when they compare injury to situations where a gun is introduced and where they aren't and tries to argue that the gun didn't make a significant impact. To that I say, I rather have the gun that trust my safety to the criminal. If I get hurt in the process of doing what I think is right so be it. But I don't want to be the guy who thought it was a better off complying with a criminals orders and end up in a stockroom somewhere being force fed drano and executed because I'm a witness to a robbery.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty much a pro gun person even if it's not to the same extent of someone like yourself but you're filled with paranoid delusions of grandeur, that's all I get from reading some what if about drano and a murder/robbery where you, and a gun changes everything. That's just a little bit too much for me man. Guns are fine but this kinda self aggrandizing stuff is just cringe worthy

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50529381]The fact that you even think this is a reasonable thing to be afraid of happening just highlights how disconnected you are from reality. Both violent and property crime are down year after year - the only experience you'll ever have to use your gun in is petty muggers - and is $20 in cash and the hassle of canceling your card really, really worth another human life?[/QUOTE] The mugger made their choice. In an ideal world they wouldn't be killed because of that choice. In an ideal world, they wouldn't (potentially) need to be making that choice to get by in the first place. But the fact of the matter is, the person being mugged at the time doesn't know the disposition of the mugger. They don't know if that person just wants their wallet and is going to dart off or not. Some people would prefer to not leave the results of the encounter up to chance or in the hands of the person assailing them. And, at the likely ranges involved, the victim in such a situation probably doesn't have the option to simply hold their attacker at gunpoint without risk of being disarmed or ending up in a physical confrontation. Edit: This is from a moral standpoint, I don't claim to know the laws.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50529381]the only experience you'll ever have to use your gun in is petty muggers - and is $20 in cash and the hassle of canceling your card really, really worth another human life?[/QUOTE] This encounter does not always present a situation where using a concealed weapon to defend yourself is lawful. You may end up in jail, or in crushing legal debt if you blast that mugger. Every use of force to defend yourself is going to come down to a stream of legal gymnastics, and a flow chart of the situation that determines whether or not the situation warrants it. A person sticking you up for your wallet on the sidewalk is probably not worth the risk to yourself to escalate the situation to lethal force. It would be a different story if that person had a gun to your head, or was a mob of people beating/threatening to beat the shit out of you. But the [I]odds[/I] of that are next to nil. Those legal gymnastics are why it's not as simple as well I'm an [I]American[/I] with a right to defend myself so don't cross me and my war boner! If anyone reading this thinks that's what a license to carry entails, please stay away from guns. So the short answer is no. $20 bucks isn't worth a life. And in a lot of cases you'll end up a murderer in prison. These are the boundaries you should know before becoming a gun owner for self defense.

Man... I really, really don't know what to think here. On one hand it's gun rights, on the other it's state's rights. I suppose I'm [I]begrudgingly[/I] okay with this, but I'd prefer a federal recognition of the "right to [I]bear[/I] arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment for face value. Taken literally the amendment states that people have a right to physically carry them, but I can see how this would upset the people on the other side of the fence. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50529381]The fact that you even think this is a reasonable thing to be afraid of happening just highlights how disconnected you are from reality. Both violent and property crime are down year after year - the only experience you'll ever have to use your gun in is petty muggers - and is $20 in cash and the hassle of canceling your card really, really worth another human life?[/QUOTE]Yeah, I'd say so. I have no idea if it's going to end at the $20 I have in my pocket or my cards, and given that they're using violent force already is it so unreasonable to assume that they'll just arbitrarily stop? There's incentive to kill me, the one thing that's truly in the way is the moral point of "killing is wrong." I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rely on that type of person's view of right and wrong to ensure my safety. That said, I'm not going to blast a motherfucker in the back for stealing my shit. That's murder.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50529558] There's incentive to kill me, the one thing that's truly in the way is the moral point of "killing is wrong." I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rely on that type of person's view of right and wrong to ensure my safety. [/QUOTE] How is there incentive to kill? I personally don't believe that there are very many criminals who are going to risk taking their petty theft charge up to murder over a wallet full of cash. Even if you take out morals I think it's just a matter of common sense, the crime is not worth risking life in jail. If anything, being armed is only going to escalate the scenario.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50529381]The fact that you even think this is a reasonable thing to be afraid of happening just highlights how disconnected you are from reality. Both violent and property crime are down year after year - the only experience you'll ever have to use your gun in is petty muggers - and is $20 in cash and the hassle of canceling your card really, really worth another human life?[/QUOTE] You assume the worst when someone is trying to do you harm. There's no reason to hope the robber is just a down on his luck individual who doesn't really want to hurt you, true or no. Bad shit happens. If you didn't know, he's referencing a fairly infamous event: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders[/url] I'm never going to be optimistic about what a criminal wants to do with me. Never. And, I've always valued my property and money over the people who are trying to unjustly take it from me, so, yeah. I work my ass off for my money and my things, I see very little value in anyone who thinks they deserve to take them from me.