Next possible SCOTUS case might be big

**American1776** · April 11th, 2017, 10:20 AM

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/0.../?sf69678759=1

If Peruta v. California is heard by the new SCOTUS, this could be BIG. A proper ruling could strike down states like NJ, MD, CA, NY, where carrying in any manner is prohibited by a may issue scheme.

Here's what could happen in the next few years: SCOTUS could strike down may issue laws like in CA and NJ. So those state would be forced to issue licenses to carry. AND, we could get a national reciprocity law.

NJ, CA, NY, MD will all collectively sh*T their pants. I think they are already worried.

**alpacaheat** · April 11th, 2017, 11:07 AM

This part concerns me...unless it was written incorrectly:

"If the lower court’s ruling in Peruta was upheld and “shall issue” permitting is deemed unconstitutional, restrictive permitting schemes in many states will have to be revamped, and perhaps thrown out entirely, based on how the decision itself is written."

Is that supposed to read "may issue"? If "shall issue" is found unConstitutional, won't that mean it cannot be used and "may issue" would be the law of the land?

If "may issue" is thrown out, that's a huge step forward.

**daschnoz** · April 11th, 2017, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by alpacaheat

This part concerns me...unless it was written incorrectly:

"If the lower court’s ruling in Peruta was upheld and “shall issue” permitting is deemed unconstitutional, restrictive permitting schemes in many states will have to be revamped, and perhaps thrown out entirely, based on how the decision itself is written."

Is that supposed to read "may issue"? If "shall issue" is found unConstitutional, won't that mean it cannot be used and "may issue" would be the law of the land?

If "may issue" is thrown out, that's a huge step forward.

[ rant]

Someone must ask the state for permission to exercise a Constitutionally protected right. Why the hell do I need to ask permission to exercise a Constitutionally protected right in the 1^st place?
The state is forced to grant permission unless they can site a substantial reason why you should not be allowed to exercise that right. Why is this considered a bad thing?

The libtards are having a conniption fit over requiring ID at the voting booth. We simply ask that you prove that you are who you say you are, and that you are allowed to vote at this location. Imagine if a state issued permit was required before someone was allowed to vote (not just an ID, but a permit - without which a person is not allowed to vote). I bet the left will have a totally different view of "shall issue" vs "may issue".

[/rant]

Gorsuch is where he is because Trump was elected president. Trump is where he is because of gun owners who got out and voted (NOT the NRA - the NRA does not vote). While it is not a political lobby in the traditional sense, I think they both know who is responsible for getting them to where they are. I have a feeling that they're going to make sure we are taken care of.

Even it it goes 5-4 in our favor, we still WIN.

**Yoder** · April 11th, 2017, 05:25 PM

I'll bet it would go like the travel ban. All those states would pretty much tell the Supreme Court to suck it. Then what?

**ungawa** · April 11th, 2017, 08:00 PM

When it comes to Liberty and the First Ten Amendments, going to court is usually not a good idea. You go to court to get new "rights" (entitlements) and to enslave others to your needs or will.

Heck, what did states and the federal government learn from Heller? "May be regulated." That's the only thing they learned. Courts have written it in their opinions repeatedly. I said it would come at the time when everybody else was celebrating.

That's the way to bet. But I am not a fortune teller.

**eyecanshoot** · April 11th, 2017, 09:39 PM

The truth about Heller V. District of Columbia(2008) is that it was used to cover up the original Heller V. District of Columbia(1912?).

After William McKinley was assassinated, D.C. enacted a ban against carrying in public. Teddy Roosevelt convinced his friend and fellow Rough Rider Edmund Heller to take a job at the Smithsonian Institute so that he would have standing to challenge the gun ban. Edmund Heller was arrested one day on his way to work. He sued and the case went before SCOTUS. The ruling stated that the 2nd Amendment clearly protected the right to carry in public. It even went so far as to say "even in Federal Building such as the Smithsonian Institute".

This case was easy to find pre 9/11. A provision of the Patriot Act designed to hide any public information that could be considered useful to terrorists was used to hide this case. Afterwards our major law libraries in this country were found to be contaminated with mold. They closed sections of the libraries that were deemed unsafe because of the mold and the original books were destroyed. In the meantime the 2008 case was used to further cement the cover up.

Now here we are trying to regain something that we already once had. While the original case was long forgotten by most, it still belonged to the people as legal ammunition against those who opposed our right to carry in public. This is just one example of what we lost the day that the Patriot Act was signed.

We have been robbed of public information relating to the Bill of Rights to make those who robbed us more secure. You're damn right I'm bitter about this. And, if you believe anything that I have typed you should also be bitter as well. 9/11 never forget MFers.