Could National reciprocity of concealed-carry permits kill the gun bill?

[Father of four]

And for some brilliant reason they get to stay in that position for a lifetime. Weird. Actually I understand why and I do not agree with it.

 

[hermannr]

I spent a couple years in law school reading USSC decisions about 6 hours a day. Overall they have done a pretty good job over the years.

As for accepting cases for review, if they feel that there was no error in the lower court, or that there is no constitutional issue involved they refuse the case so as not to waste everyone's time. They may not agree with the lower court decision on other grounds, but if there was no violation of the constitution, and no legal error in the lower court there's nothing they CAN do.

I think you are being a bit simplistic as to the criteria the Supremes use to decide which cases they will hear, or not. I have heard some very good arguments why Woollard V Sheridan is a much cleaner case (at the en-blanc appeal stage in the 4th) and the Moore V Madigan is even more comprehensive (no carry at all).

It could be very possible that certain justices would rather see one of those cases proceed. Madigan only has 3 months or so before she either appeals to the supremes, IL passes a carry law, or IL becomes VT #2...and I am sure everyone here knows Vermont's license requirements? Right? None. Right now Madigan is in a tight spot. There is not enough support in IL for a "may issue" license scheme, and not quite enough support to get past Chicago and Quinn's veto with a loose "shall issue" scheme.

There were many 2A cases passed up prior to Heller that COULD have solved the individual right v corporate right long ago. But they were not accepted.

 

[kumabear17]

IMHO: universal "Shall Issue" will happen with a US Supreme Court ruling on Kachalski v Cacase (NY Westchester Co NY..appeal at the Supreme court now..not accepted yet, but should be soon (days), or not. If not Kachalski, then Wollard V Sheridan (MD case that is request for en blac at the 4th right now. I am hoping for Kachalski being accepted....).

You did notice the case was rejected and as usual the Supremes don't explain why.
CheaperThanDirt Forum : Supreme Court Declines Gun Law Case - View Post

Couldn't be that Roberts who sold the Country out on Obamacare did it once more on this issue?

 

[hermannr]

You did notice the case was rejected and as usual the Supremes don't explain why.
CheaperThanDirt Forum : Supreme Court Declines Gun Law Case - View Post

Couldn't be that Roberts who sold the Country out on Obamacare did it once more on this issue?

yes I did, and so noted earlier.

They did not "reject" it...they just declined to hear it, along with thousands of other cases. There are other 2A cases out in the wings (that some lawyers believe to be "cleaner", that ask the same basic question. Some think they are waiting for for one or more of those.

Rejecting an appeal is not the same as declining to hear an appeal. The result of declining to hear Kachalski only affects the 2ed circuit. Hearing it and Rejecting it would mean it applied to the US.

 

[beavertonbuck]

The problem is that reciprocity is not in the bill. Prior to the compromise the bill was dying a slow death now it's bipartisan. I could them thinking they will add reciprocity as an amendment but there it is no guarantee that we have the votes.

 

[Netspirit]

<broken link removed>

 

[kumabear17]

Oxymoron isn't it "Schumer" & "Nuts"?

Article is right on as to where this is ending up going. Schumer is the pointman for the Left and the White House.

And in our corner we have... don't tell me I'll think of someone. Well we had Paul, Lee, Cruz and sort of McConnel until they were crapped on by Toomey. Oh I know he and Gottlieb are going to pull a miriacle out of their behind. If they do I will happily eat crow.

Butch

 

[Kevatc]

9 again to rule/judge over 300+ million. Yep, I am sure that's what the founding fathers intended for this country. To go from 1 king to 9.

I'd much rather have 9 intelligent folks have to listen to both sides of an issue presented by other intelligent folks and then debate it between themselves than leave it to just one person.

Seems to me the problem isn't the SCOTUS but the way the Constitution was written. Like all legal documents sometimes you can't tell if they say "yes you can" or "no you can't". In so far as the Consitution goes I guess it's a double edged instrument ... it's a brilliant document but it obviously creates lots of fustration due to the way it is interpreted relative to an issue.

I wish the 2A was written as such: The right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed by anyone for any reason.

 

[Father of four]

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory though.

 

[Father of four]

I'd much rather have 9 intelligent folks have to listen to both sides of an issue presented by other intelligent folks and then debate it between themselves than leave it to just one person.

I can see where you are coming from but that is not the kind of country the founders set up. Not to be ruled by 9 judges. The power belongs to the people, which gives authority to 3 parts of the government not 1. But The People have the final say and if they do not like the government or its rules and regulations The People have the right to change it to how they see fit. The government or the judges do not have that right. They are to help do what The People want. The judges or any part of the government never has the right to do anything contrary to The Peoples will.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness&#8212;-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

 

[Kevatc]

I can see where you are coming from but that is not the kind of country the founders set up. Not to be ruled by 9 judges. The power belongs to the people, which gives authority to 3 parts of the government not 1. But The People have the final say and if they do not like the government or its rules and regulations The People have the right to change it to how they see fit. The government or the judges do not have that right. They are to help do what we want. The judges or any part of the government never has the right to do anything contrary to The Peoples will.

Which People's will? Look at the last election. 51% went Dem and 47% went Repub. Should the government have to listen to the 51% only? Should we the people vote on every issue? I thought that was why we hired legislator types?

The 9 judges don't rule. I think hermannr has done a good job explaining what the SCOTUS does. Maybe your ire should be directed at the legislative aspects of things. Pick just about any bill you want and see just how much of it is all about it's title. I bet you can find lots of stuff stuck into a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with it's original intent. Then look at how they are written. It's all sausage making. Then look at the rules and regs that direct how bills come to be voted on ... or not. More sausage making. Blame the people making the laws that the SCOTUS has to look at to see how they may or may not be Constitutional. Most of the time our government is an inept, plodding, overly complicated, intrusive, incoherent, mess but it's one I would rather live under warts and all than any other government.

 

[Father of four]

Which People's will? Look at the last election. 51% went Dem and 47% went Repub. Should the government have to listen to the 51% only? Should we the people vote on every issue? I thought that was why we hired legislator types?

I do not have all the answers and never claimed to. 51%Dem to 47%Repub...what about the Independents? Only 3%? The Peoples will? All 100%. No we should not vote on every issue, but when Obamacare is passed by our representatives against the will of the people and then the supreme court rules in favor of it then something is wrong. BTW last i heard most people do not believe the government is good at fixing problems and our representatives have a super low approval ratings. I guess we the people should just kick the can down the road and wait until the next election.

I would rather live here in the USA then anywhere on the planet, but I am not foolish enough to think its not got a bunch of serious problems.

Where are the brilliant men and women trying to fix them? I don't see them.

 

[Kevatc]

I do not have all the answers and never claimed to. 51%Dem to 47%Repub...what about the Independents? Only 3%? The Peoples will? All 100%.

The "Peoples will" would require a 100% agreement. That is my point ... we the People were divided on the last POTUS election. We will never be in 100% agreeement as a people on anything.

 

[Father of four]

We are never gonna agree 100%, and never have. Not being 100% agreeable is fine. Heck I am not 100% agreeable with anyone. Let the The People be the final deciders of either settling on something or letting it wait until later.

 

[kumabear17]

We are never gonna agree 100%, and never have. Not being 100% agreeable is fine. Heck I am not 100% agreeable with anyone. Let the The People be the final deciders of either settling on something or letting it wait until later.

I'm not sure I fully agree with majority rule when it comes to the Constitution. We are a Representative Republic not a Democracy precisely to ensure a majority on any one issue didn't dominate a minority. I believe the Supreme Court was set up to validate the laws passed met this, or any, Constitutional test,

Currently our Leftist Leader, his Party and the media have been demonizing the Constitution as being to static and not a "living document" that reflects current society views. In other words the views of the perceived majority Left. I find the issue both concerning and scary. Should the Court continue to be politicized, as on Obamacare for example, we may be in for even greater challenges.

 

[Father of four]

I understand and agree, kumabear17. But ultimately left to the people to decide, not just for a few judges to decide for us all. That is my whole point. Especially if the majority of the people disagree with the judges. Then who should have the final word?

 

[Father of four]

Right here is a darn good reason for The People to have the say not Our government.....Obama signs STOCK Act modification - The Hill's On The Money

"President Obama quietly signed legislation Monday that rolled back a provision of the STOCK Act that required high-ranking federal employees to disclose their financial information online.

The White House announced Monday that the president had signed S. 716, which repealed a requirement of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act requiring the disclosure, which had previously been delayed several times by Congress.

That provision, added to the bipartisan bill aimed at halting insider trading by members of Congress, would have required roughly 28,000 senior government officials to post their financial information online, and had come under harsh criticism from federal government employee unions.

Both chambers of Congress quickly &#8212; and near silently &#8212; approved the repeal legislation at the end of last week by unanimous consent, just before heading home to their districts."

 

[kumabear17]

I understand and agree, kumabear17. But ultimately left to the people to decide, not just for a few judges to decide for us all. That is my whole point. Especially if the majority of the people disagree with the judges. Then who should have the final word?

I understand and agree. It never is, nor should it ever be, easy for a free people to succumb to a Fascist Government, but I believe we are constantly fighting a Leftist movement in that direction. When we went over the 50% mark as to people receiving Government assistance we started a faster slide. I think that 50% includes a lot of us on social security and to me that really isn't a Government funded program &#8211; at least it should not be. It's a reimbursement.

My point is I agree it shouldn't be a Fascist President, nor 9 seemingly politicized judges or 432 mostly corrupt congressmen. It should be the population, but how to do that without the process falling to mob rule brought on by mass hysteria. Once that gets a hold of our political system, and I believe it is, we are in desperate trouble. It would have to be something terribly dramatic to disrupt the direction thinking seems to be going.
Butch

 

[Dave Workman]

In answer to the original question, there appears to be some movement toward the cemetery...


Some sources sounding taps on gun legislation

<broken link removed>