2nd Amendment Thread

[de officiis]

San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether law-abiding citizens need to provide law enforcement with a specific reason to be able to legally carry a concealed weapon for self-defense.

Part-time San Diegan Edward Peruta and other gun owners who were denied concealed-carry permits by the San Diego County sheriff filed a petition Thursday asking the high court to consider hearing their case . . . .

The case has been closely watched by gun rights and gun control advocates, law enforcement and legal experts nationwide, and many have predicted that . . . this one could be the vehicle to decide how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home.

Courts around the country have been split on the matter.

...

The case stems from a 2009 lawsuit that challenged the county’s policy of requiring “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry weapon permit, or CCW, as unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are Peruta, Michelle Laxson, James Dodd, Leslie Buncher, Mark Cleary, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation.

The Sheriff’s Department, which handles all permits in the county, requires applicants to state a specific reason they want to carry a concealed firearm, such as having a job that involves transporting large amounts of cash or needing protection from a stalker. Applicants must also pass a background check, be residents, have good moral character and complete firearms training.

Similar guidelines are followed in many of California’s big metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, Orange County and the Bay Area.

The petition for writ of certiorari argues that self-defense is a good enough reason to want to carry a gun in public, whether it is concealed or openly displayed. State law generally bans the open carry of loaded and unloaded firearms.

[Okeefenokee]

[de officiis]

Well, don't count on it. Getting a Writ of Cert granted is kinda like

[de officiis]

TARGET DISCRIMINATION: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Women and Minorities

Daniel Peabody - 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 883 (Fall 2016)

This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should find that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to carry a concealed firearm outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part II provides a brief overview of the English right to bear arms and the development of the first statute to restrict carrying firearms, the Statute of Northampton. Part II continues by detailing the evolution of the American right to bear arms including the current firearm carrying statutes. Part II concludes with an analysis of the relevant sections of the landmark Second Amendment cases, District of Columbia v. Heller 15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago. 16 Part III discusses the current circuit split relating to concealed carry statutes. Part IV argues that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to include the right to carry firearms outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part IV also considers the effects that restrictive concealed carry statutes are likely to have on women and minorities. Ultimately, I conclude that the Second Amendment allows the individual the right to carry a firearm outside of the home, and, because of the disproportionate negative effect that restrictive concealed carry statutes have on women and minorities, the Supreme Court must incorporate concealed carry in the Second Amendment.

http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-co ... _Final.pdf

[Okeefenokee]

TARGET DISCRIMINATION: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Women and Minorities

Daniel Peabody - 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 883 (Fall 2016)

This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should find that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to carry a concealed firearm outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part II provides a brief overview of the English right to bear arms and the development of the first statute to restrict carrying firearms, the Statute of Northampton. Part II continues by detailing the evolution of the American right to bear arms including the current firearm carrying statutes. Part II concludes with an analysis of the relevant sections of the landmark Second Amendment cases, District of Columbia v. Heller 15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago. 16 Part III discusses the current circuit split relating to concealed carry statutes. Part IV argues that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to include the right to carry firearms outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part IV also considers the effects that restrictive concealed carry statutes are likely to have on women and minorities. Ultimately, I conclude that the Second Amendment allows the individual the right to carry a firearm outside of the home, and, because of the disproportionate negative effect that restrictive concealed carry statutes have on women and minorities, the Supreme Court must incorporate concealed carry in the Second Amendment.

http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-co ... _Final.pdf

but what does it mean, man? We ain't lawyers.

[de officiis]

TARGET DISCRIMINATION: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Women and Minorities

Daniel Peabody - 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 883 (Fall 2016)

This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should find that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to carry a concealed firearm outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part II provides a brief overview of the English right to bear arms and the development of the first statute to restrict carrying firearms, the Statute of Northampton. Part II continues by detailing the evolution of the American right to bear arms including the current firearm carrying statutes. Part II concludes with an analysis of the relevant sections of the landmark Second Amendment cases, District of Columbia v. Heller 15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago. 16 Part III discusses the current circuit split relating to concealed carry statutes. Part IV argues that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to include the right to carry firearms outside of the home for the purpose of self-defense. Part IV also considers the effects that restrictive concealed carry statutes are likely to have on women and minorities. Ultimately, I conclude that the Second Amendment allows the individual the right to carry a firearm outside of the home, and, because of the disproportionate negative effect that restrictive concealed carry statutes have on women and minorities, the Supreme Court must incorporate concealed carry in the Second Amendment.

http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-co ... _Final.pdf

but what does it mean, man? We ain't lawyers.

I think the summary is straight-forward. He's arguing that the 2d Amendment should be construed to provide constitutional protection to carrying firearms for self-defense. Heller involved home ownership of a firearm, so this is taking the idea of self-defense a bit further.

[Ex-California]

have good moral character

That's the next way that they'll prevent people from being granted the certification.

I don't even think certifications should be required. The 2A tells me I can carry anything I want, and I can own a tank if I want to as well.

[Okeefenokee]

Tanks are bad on gas, and they'll fuck up your driveway.

[Speaker to Animals]

Tanks are bad on gas, and they'll fuck up your driveway.

Well, that's why you park it on the lawn.

[Ex-California]

They don't allow us to have those anymore either