Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

What if the Supreme Court rules against Right to Carry?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by PainCakesx, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. PainCakesx

    PainCakesx Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize if this has been asked before, but let's hypothetically assume the worst - the Supreme Court rules that our 2nd Amendment rights do not extend outside of our homes, and as such we don't have a constitutional right to carry a firearm.

    Is there any recourse, whatsoever, that can be taken in the unfortunate event of such a decision? Or are we essentially forced to submit to the decision and accept it? What would you suspect would happen in such an event nationally?

    I apologize if these answers are obvious, I'm admittedly am not a lawyer nor would I say that I'm an expert on such things.
     
  2. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    4,970
    Sure we storm the castle and set up the guillotine. But seriously what if aliens from space come down here and eat all our corn?
     
  3. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    685
    Is there any recourse, whatsoever, that can be taken in the unfortunate event of such a decision?

    Yes there is, but we won't discuss them here on the world wide internet ;)
     
    Brutus57, kumabear17, Stomper and 3 others like this.
  4. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    Hypothetically things would get bad pretty fast. (It would mean it was time to follow in our founders footsteps and head their advise) Our second amendment merrily reaffirms an existing right and the only way it can be lost is if it has been ceded to someone or something else. The second amendment could be completely removed from our bill of rights and we would still maintain the right as long as we do not give it up.
     
    Brutus57 and kumabear17 like this.
  5. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    19,869
    Well that's only one step in the process. In Oregon, the State Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for personal protection - it actually states that in the language. Considering CCW permits are issued by states and not by the Federal government, I don't know how much impact it could actually have. Besides the 2nd amendment, we also have the 10th, regarding states rights, and that's important too. Honestly, the way things are going, it's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS ends up liberal anti-gun heavy, so I expect things to change for us when that happens.
     
  6. DeanfromOregon

    DeanfromOregon Wilsonville Amateur Ascended Master Platinum Supporter

    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    863
    Crime will go up!
     
  7. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    That is a very good question, and surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) only one person in this thread tried to answer it. Let's take a look...

    That is absolutely correct. SCOTUS ruling against carry doesn't automatically ban carry. It will only uphold whatever law that the case tried to challenge. So if they rule on the case against San Diego, Sheriff's Office can continue to deny licenses at their discretion. That will also make any challenges in progress moot, as well as any future challenges on the same grounds.

    Which means Oregon legislature will be unable to ban carry. It will do nothing to protect the citizens against the feds, should Congress enact carry restriction laws.

    Feds already regulate carry in the School Zones, providing exemptions from those restrictions to persons licensed in a given state. They can easily remove the exemption, and we will not be able to challenge it on the 2A grounds.

    And with the blessing from SCOTUS Feds have been bypassing the 10th via Interstate Commerce for quite some time now.

    So it's better if they rule sooner than later :) That way we have a better chance of getting the "correct" ruling out. SCOTUS will not issue a ruling against its own decision even when the balance has changed, as long as the most justices on the panel are still the same. Besides, there would have to be a proper case in the first place, for them to revisit the issue.

    So what's the bottom line ? If the SCOTUS rules against the carry and feds decide to mess with it, then the only recourse is the Constitutional Amendment or the option that many old timers in here prefer (and which I think is stupid). If the some states decide to mess with carry, then the recourse will vary from state to state, and will generally amount to challenges under state constitutions or the same Constitutional Amendment to the US Constitution. And of course, there is always the normal process of preventing legislators from enacting restrictions regardless of what the SCOTUS ruling says.
     
    pdx225, kumabear17 and etrain16 like this.
  8. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    19,869
    @fd15k - I agree with everything you said - and you made some nice points in elaborating on my comments. I'm probably a bit too much of an idealist to actually believe that the feds will honor the constitution when they show their contempt for by violating it - as you point out, regarding the 10th amendment, on a regular basis. Thankfully our votes still mean something...I hope.
     
  9. billstaf

    billstaf Portland, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    165

    Perfect answer.
     
  10. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    I don't think they would make that ruling, effectively making the 2A an 'at home only freedom' . What would follow is you can only have free speech at home, only be safe in your person and effects at home, etc... in short the friggin wheels would come flying off as patriots would muster and the stand would start.
     
  11. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    You're assuming they would apply the 1A framework to the 2A. While it has been the case so far, nothing prevents them from inventing yet another framework due to 2A being especially "dangerous". In fact even the Heller decision itself while more or less correct in its conclusion, considered by folks from the Cato Institute to be pulled out of the bubblegum. And if you're still unconvinced, look at the present state of the 6th or 14th Amendment.

    Patriots haven't noticed that we didn't have 2A for 150 years, this one will likely come unnoticed as well.
     
  12. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    So freaking what!!!!!!!

    Multnomah county has all but taken the 2nd Amendment right away for non- CHL people. Yeah, they can open carry a unloaded piece of metal but it aint gonna offer much protection until that person puts ammo in it. Then that is illegal...Oh, unless you ask their permission of their CHL.
    You just go ahead and keep believing the 2nd is being upheld. In Multnomah county its only for the people who ask for the governments permission, take a class, pay a fee and jump threw a few more hoops.

    The 2nd Amendment here in Multnomah county has been regulated/ordinanced away.
     
  13. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687

    Please read my above post.

    Why stand up for your 2nd Amendment right? Its easier to just go get the CHL state permission. Who needs rights when they got permissions for us.
     
  14. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    You need to read this :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard
    Note that this is in regards to the US Constitution. For your question about Multnomah and Oregon Constitution you may have to dig into Oregon Supreme Court decisions.
     
  15. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    19,869
    Where in my post do you see me saying it's being upheld in Oregon? I didn't say that. All I said was what the Oregon Constitution specifies. I am aware of what PDX and a few other cities have attempted to do. So far, nothing they have done has violated the state preemption rules. They are working within the bounds of the current law - yes, they are pushing it as far as they can, but the rules they make apply to public places. You are still allowed to have a gun for protection in your home. I'm not saying I agree with what places like PDX are doing, nor am I saying that our rights are as open as I'd like to see - but they are not doing anything that violates the current law. If you aren't happy with that, then work to change it. As for me, I will continue to voice my opinion about these things to my state and federal legislators. If you're angry about it, great, put the anger to good use and influence as many voters as you can to vote for pro-gun politicians so we can perhaps expand on that freedom some day.
     
  16. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Technically being within the state law doesn't necesserily make these ordnances constitutional under Oregon Constitution. We would have to look at the history of the RKBA litigation in Oregon to determine what form of regulation (if any) is allowed for the state and local governments in regards to keep in bear. It is also possible that these laws are allowed to stand only because nobody ever challenged them. I never bothered to look into that, as the national stuff is so much more fascinating :D
     
  17. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Oh, here is one example for Oregon Constitution :

    So yeah, bad luck for folks without CHL :D
     
  18. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,545
    Likes Received:
    19,869
    All the more reason for as many folks as possible to stand up for their rights - to contact as many legislators as possible and to do what they can to influence voters to our position. I'm not willing to accept the current situation with firearms rights (or lack thereof) as the new 'normal' and will not accept that we have been defeated.
     
    GunRightsCoalition likes this.
  19. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    1,736
    Did you read the OP fantasy scenario? You think that such a scenario would go unnoticed? People may be prodded and slowly pressured over time or even generations to relinquish Constitutionally recognized freedom but to come out and strait up take away open concealed carry on a federal level... lets just say not everyone has the same mentality as CA or NY. There would be a stand.

    IMO, there is a powder keg growing out there, in no small part due to the abuse of power of those that purport to serve us as well as the obvious erosion of freedom we see happening all around us.
     
  20. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Two things to point out. First of all, there would be no practical implications right away for anybody. States that don't issue permits would continue to deny them, and states that issue them readily will continue doing just that. Since nobody would get affected, nobody would say anything, just like today many folks here don't want to participate in California's gun politics - supposedly it doesn't affect them.

    Second thing, what you call a fantasy scenario. There is history of 150 years of 2A being on the books, while having no legal implications.

    Then finally, SCOTUS has a history of coming up with all kinds of weird decisions. For example, one of my "favorite" ones is

    So on one hand, you have the "fantasy scenario" of what supposed "patriots" may do when some legal stuff happens that doesn't affect them (at least at first), without any history of them doing anything ever before. On the other hand, you have the "fantasy scenario" of 150 years of very real legal weirdness that came out of SCOTUS. Yeah, the OP must be living in the fantasy world.
     
    MikeE likes this.