US Supreme Court might rule on concealed carry.

[fxstc]

Hi everyone,

I've followed the forum for over a year but typically don't post anything. I just saw a Fox News blurb however that I think everyone should know about. Rumor is growing that due to a division among the states regarding concealed carry, the US supreme court might rule on whether the second amendment covers the right to concealed carry. Does anyone have more information regarding this?

[Dr.um]

Just found this in the context of another thread. A very recently decided case that, I think, accurately predicts the state of the federal law on this matter. Its an interesting read.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

Whether or not the "SCOTUS" will be reviewing the issue any time soon, well, I surely would not trust Fox to be even close to accurate about that, but... even a broke clock is accurate twice a day.

[tsafa]

I think that the NY, CA or NJ bans on Military Style Rifles and magazine capacity have a better chance of being heard first. It is a more pressing issue, since it stands to turn millions of ordinary citizens into criminals. People would be loosing rights they already have. It win there, would kick out Obama's legs from under him.

Lets defend our current rights first before we try to expand them.

[Dr.um]

I think that the NY, CA or NJ bans on Military Style Rifles and magazine capacity have a better chance of being heard first. It is a more pressing issue, since it stands to turn millions of ordinary citizens into criminals.

I will be duly shocked if various aspects of those laws even make it through their own state courts successfully. It will be years before any of those make it all the way up.

The issue of whether the constitution grants a right to concealed carry is a lot closer to SCOTUS review than any of the recent gun laws.

[Big5]

OPEN CARRY,

[PaGunner]

I wrote a paper this past summer on whether or not there is a right to carry a firearm outside of the home. Long story short there is a huge circuit split among the Federal Courts. The Supreme Court may take up the issue within a year or two since most of the cases are in their Circuits' Court of Appeals.

You'll notice most of these cases stem from District Courts in liberal states. The two main questions throughout these cases are 1) Is there a right to possess a firearm outside of the home & 2) if so what standard of review should the Court apply. Strict Scrutiny was applied in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. For some reason from what I remember most Courts apply Intermediate Scrutiny outside of the home. To me it's simple 1) Yes there is a right & 2) Strict Scrutiny, but what do I know I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

See Shepard v. Madigan, http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/1...led-carry-ban/ (Check out the picture of the Plaintiff)

Woollard v. Sheridan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woollard_v._Sheridan

Peruta v. County of San Diego, http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

[Dr.um]

That is a slightly different question, but an interesting one.
Pa. along with several other states has long recognized their citizens' right to carry outside the home.

The distinction of doing the same in a concealed fashion is, for various reasons, has an entirely different analysis in our common law.

[SRH]

Just found this in the context of another thread. A very recently decided case that, I think, accurately predicts the state of the federal law on this matter. Its an interesting read.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

Whether or not the "SCOTUS" will be reviewing the issue any time soon, well, I surely would not trust Fox to be even close to accurate about that, but... even a broke clock is accurate twice a day.

I just read about this on WSJ. The issue seems to be popping up a lot in appeals courts. This may very well go before the Supreme Court in the next 5-10 years.

[PaGunner]

That is a slightly different question, but an interesting one.
Pa. along with several other states has long recognized their citizens' right to carry outside the home.

The distinction of doing the same in a concealed fashion is, for various reasons, has an entirely different analysis in our common law.

I agree that they are two separate issues but they are closely related. The “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions” from D.C. v. Heller is what kills us for concealed carry. It was used in Peruta v. San Diego to allowed for what was called the Alternative Outlet Doctrine saying a ban on CC was allowed since OC (unload) was allowed, however at the beginning of 2012 Gov. Brown prohibited OC making the holding in Peruta invalid.

If the Supreme Court were to rule there is a right to carry outside of the home and that there are no prohibitions on this (similar to the inside the home from Heller) then it could lead to Con. Carry throughout the US and do away with CCW, LTCF, CWP, etc. Now I am making logical leaps here but to me it seems if the Supreme Court agrees there is a right outside of the home, they would be more likely to rule that whatever method you chose it fine.

If they rule CC must be allowed but still allow CA, NJ, NY, MD, etc to regulate the process it'd be almost a pointless ruling not changing much but Illinois.

The “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt onlongstanding prohibitions” dates back to the old western days where towns prohibited CC and only allowed OC, which was the court in Peruta's logic behind allowing prohibitions on CC.

**I apologize if this seems like a rant it's been a long day and I will re-read it tomorrow to clarify.**

[Dr.um]

It is an odd hair to split, I agree... in reality at least.

I very much agree with the concept of a more useable federally applicable plan for carrying nationwide.

That could be either an OBTAINABLE federal license law that would supercede any varying state laws

Or... some sort of universal reciprocity. Everyone has to apply for the license in their own state and then that license is good in all 50 states, much like a driver's license.

Eventually, it will happen. It just makes too much sense.

D