US SCOTUS May Get Another “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” Case

“Peruta is asking the courts to put that option back on the table in CA and everywhere else it has been denied, and basically make “shall issue” the law of the land.
 
If the court takes up this case, we’ll find out how its newest member will really rule on 2A issues. Ultimately, this could be the case that fills in some of the many gaps left by the Heller decision. If this passes, the urgency behind the national reciprocity act will ratchet down a bit more, because citizens in anti-gun states will finally be able to exercise their constitutional rights.”
 
See Supreme Court May Hear Case Affirming Right to Concealed Carry – AllOutdoor.com
Soon after the installation of Gorsuch to SCOTUS, all kinds of ugly situations will raise their heads out of the swamp to see whether they can rule the land: abortion, RTKBA, states’ rights, national healthcare insurance, Planned Parenthood, software patents… come to mind.

On some of these, USA has grown up and become more cosmopolitan but on others pockets of “fundamentalists” (yes, just like Islam’s rude uncles…) carry on the fight to regress to ancient times when anyone could pick up a sharp stick or club and establish law. Fortunately SCOTUS is back to 5:4 modern:primitive so the wave of evil might be staved off for a while. I hope all the old timers take their pneumonia immunizations (I’m getting mine today.), eat right, and get exercise so they might live at least 3 more years. After all, [SARCASM]we can’t have a sitting president get his choice in the fourth year[/SARCASM], eh? Surely by then enough of the fools who voted for Trump will see the error of their ways.

I’m all for RTKBA, but concealed carry in Chicago or NYC or LA will not make the world a better place. It might make for a drop in purse-snatching but the road rage, murder, and manslaughter rates might skyrocket. We already have enough of that. Just imagine the next movie theatre massacre with an uncivil war breaking out. How are concealed carry people going to know who’s the bad guy in a shootout in the dark?

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms, politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to US SCOTUS May Get Another “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” Case

  1. Grece says:

    You dimwitted oxymoron, you just reinforced what I said. I find it laughable that you can never keep your story straight.

    See we agree, the United States of America States…is absolutely horrible to read. as you stated “USA states” perhaps you do have a few working neurons firing.

    Now, continuing on, “America” is NOT comprised of Canada and/or Mexico as States of the Union. Canada and/or Mexico, are separate countries, fully independent of America. It is proper to include those two and other countries in the general term “Americas”, but dumb-ass, that is not what you said.

  2. Ivan says:

    American States people from the USA use this all time.

    Did your mother drop LSD when she was pregnant with you?

  3. oiaohm says:

    No such thing, USA is an acronym. Now if you stated American States, then that would have been proper.
    Grece horrible news here you just provided you an idiot again. American States people from the USA use this all time. Please list the American States be-careful it has two meanings one that people for the USA have the habit of using that is totally incorrect.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas
    All that green area on that map on wikipedia is America so Canada Mexcio…. are states of America. Now if you want to write what I said correct long hand its the United States of America States what is absolutely horrible to read.

    If that were the case, there would be no crime in Chicago or any of city that has strict regulations. Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms.
    This is also being a idiot. There is one documented population on earth of humans without crime but their culture they don’t legally own anything this includes no concept of marriage. So there will be crime we can only control the percentage. Easy firearm access and carry rules is proven to increase crime rate.

    Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms.
    This again is total crap. The problem here is people doing studies in the USA have failed test their assumes out side the USA to see this is a lie. Get the number from refuge camps on violent crime. Lot of these people are in deeper Poverty than even the worst areas in the USA.

    The factors.
    1) Quality of law enforcement. This can been seen with Refuge camps clearly a camp with a effective police force of some form be it military or civilian has a lower crime rate.
    2) Prohibition on carrying weapons around without need. Lowers crime rate a lot.
    3) Education. Normally the high the education of the people in refuge camp the lower the violent crime rate.
    4) Hope. A person having no feeling of a possible better future is more likely to-do violent crime.

    The problem here is in the USA all 4 of those factors are wrong in the areas with poverty. Lot of the poverty is caused by the high crime rate. So Poverty is a symptom of violent crime not a cause of it. So yes where ever you see Poverty high crime is normal there and its the high crime causing the poverty normally due to multi-able of the 4 factors. Attempt to address poverty without address the 4 factors causing it will get no where.

    LOL…you’re an idiot. How can the police detain someone, without a suspicion of a crime? The police need probable cause of said crime, to be able to do so and lawfully detain you.
    When you require a permit to carry a firearm having a firearm is probable cause to question you to check that you have a permit. Having not having firearm permit is the crime the police get to long term detain you. So the carry permits do work they do party align with the refuge camp “Prohibition on carrying weapons around without need.”

    So you think criminals follow laws? Criminals are not worried about “troubles”, they make their own troubles.
    The reality here is not all Criminals are equal. Most crimes are because of opportunity. So a person carrying drugs is not going to want to be pulled up because they have a gun or knife resulting in them held and searched because they had a gun or knife. Majority of criminals are exactly like law abiding and wanting to avoid having to be detained by police. Criminal are normally attempting to avoid police attention. The idea that Criminals only make their own troubles is total wrong. You can see the differences in behaviour drug dealer in Australia is more likely to carry a baseball bat than a gun why because a baseball bat is a plausible to carry item. Yet in the USA drug dealers are more likely to have gun in states without carry permits and in states with carry permits more likely to use baseball bat like weapons. So the type of weapons classes of criminal use in different area tell you clearly the laws have effects. Does this mean the number of violet crimes will be less most likely no but it does alter the death rate.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate

    The murder rate numbers directly align to the countries prohibition against carrying weapons without causes restrictions. The high the restriction against carrying weapons the lower the Murder rates. Countries with higher poverty rates than the USA have lower Murder rates due to being in more alignment with 4 basic points than the USA is so blaming poverty is a idiot move not backed by any broadly researched data.

    So prohibition against weapons means more people alive from being beaten up in violent crime than dead this does help with prosecution. So weapon control may not alter violent crime rate one bit but it directly alter the outcomes. Quality education and police is a very key ones to in fact bring violent crime rates down.

  4. Grece says:

    Grese Bugger off yourself from this topic.

    LOL, considering I live in the country this article is written about. I have a more complete understanding of the subject matter then say a peon does, living in a dirty, dank basement, in the outback of Australia.

    Again you insulting

    Are you a special snowflake that needs coddling? Would you prefer I lie and state how smart and educated you are? You’re nothing but a tosser!

    when I have put a USA cite that you idiot.

    Please list cite, stating I am an idiot. We already know you’re an idiot, so there is nothing to cite regarding you.

    There is no valid counter cite.

    My, oh my! How how totalitarian of you! Perhaps Kim Jong-un would accept you as his pet errand boy. He would absolutely love your thinking.

  5. Grece says:

    The right to carry law is restriction on who can legally carry firearms so reducing number of arms on the streets in the USA states that have it. Result is simple gun regulation equals less gun crime because police can detain those who don’t have a license to have gun before they can use it in a crime. So making it trouble for a criminal to carry/use a gun.

    Whoa, you psychotic wombat, lets break-down what you stated.

    right to carry law is restriction

    You are confused. How can a “right” be a “law” followed by a “restriction” at the same time? Do you EVEN remotely understand the distinction between the three terms? Obviously not.

    who can legally carry firearms

    The Second Amendment, along with State constitutions and accompanying laws, clearly state who may.

    reducing number of arms on the streets

    Is there an overpopulation of arms? By the way, hows the Marfan arm, orange picking gig going these days?

    USA states

    No such thing, USA is an acronym. Now if you stated American States, then that would have been proper.

    simple gun regulation equals less gun crime

    If that were the case, there would be no crime in Chicago or any of city that has strict regulations. Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms.

    police can detain those who don’t have a license to have gun before they can use it in a crime

    LOL…you’re an idiot. How can the police detain someone, without a suspicion of a crime? The police need probable cause of said crime, to be able to do so and lawfully detain you.

    So making it trouble for a criminal to carry/use a gun

    So you think criminals follow laws? Criminals are not worried about “troubles”, they make their own troubles.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Grece

    http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
    Finally, while the evidence linking between the rate at which permits are issued and the drops in crime rates is important, it is only one portion of the evidence. For example, if there was no change in the number of people carrying concealed handguns, why did violent crime rates in neighboring counties without the law increase at the same time that they were falling in neighboring counties with the right-to-carry law?

    Try again moron Grece. The right to carry law is restriction on who can legally carry firearms so reducing number of arms on the streets in the USA states that have it. Result is simple gun regulation equals less gun crime because police can detain those who don’t have a license to have gun before they can use it in a crime. So making it trouble for a criminal to carry/use a gun.

    USA own numbers are against unregulated right to bear arms.

    Grese Bugger off yourself from this topic. Again you insulting when I have put a USA cite that you idiot. There is no valid counter cite.

    I’m all for RTKBA, but concealed carry in Chicago or NYC or LA will not make the world a better place.

    Robert Pogson in fact the numbers say it has made those places better by in fact giving the police the power to pull those up who are carrying guns and checking for a permit and taking them in if they don’t. So reducing number of guns on street.

    1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker

    2. Defensive uses of guns are common
    Both of these ideas from grece there are no support numbers. In firearm cases a successful use of gun Defensively is less than 0.001 percent change killing or stopping the aggressive party. Attempting to use a gun defensively has a 90 percent change of you dead mostly because the aggressive party has their gun drawn and by the time you attempt to draw and the aggressive party was drawn so you are all ready going down by aggressive party bullet before you get first bullet off. So defensive is a joke. Turns out the maths is the same as using a gun against a bear. Gun is useful to defend others absolutely worthless to defend yourself. So you need effective distraction for a gun to work.

    Firearm Armed citizens are more likely to get hurt not less. Mostly because they go firearm first instead of like a flash bang or spray to put aggressive party on the back foot.

    Basically the reason why a person in a bear area should have bear spray is the reason why having a firearm for self defence is stupid. With a bear the bear spray creates you distraction so giving you a clear shot to aim and use firearm if you have to.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/

    The data has been done over and over and over again in the USA coming to the same answers all the time matching other countries with better data sets.

    USA population is not unique in being incompetent with the usage of firearms.

    Its hard for people to get a firearm is for defence of others not for defence of self. Does not matter if what you are facing down be it a bear, dog or a human how humans can effectively use a firearm does not change.

  7. Grece says:

    concealed carry in Chicago or NYC or LA will not make the world a better place.

    I agree Robert, however, concealed-carry is already in place right now in Chicago.

  8. Grece says:

    ISTR USA enjoyed using the country as a staging area in WWII and as a listening post for NASA and manpower in other wars.

    Robert, you are starting to concern me. Are you suffering from dementia? We were discussing the RTKBA in the U.S., and Petey brings up Australia and you reinforce his off-topic vector with continued off-topic vectors.

    Everyone knows that Petey is mentally defective, so why do you choose to reinforce it? You are just making your yourself out to be another Oiaohm, but from Canada.

  9. Grece wrote, “No one gives two-shits care about Australia”.

    ISTR USA enjoyed using the country as a staging area in WWII and as a listening post for NASA and manpower in other wars.

  10. Grece says:

    Yo Petey,

    No one gives two-shits care about Australia, you dodgy ankle-biter.

    Bugger off!

  11. oiaohm says:

    http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/
    Tim Lambert, a Computer Scientist at the University of New South Wales
    From Wizard Emeritus link. If you don’t notice this is Australia.

    There are no statistics kept on defensive use of firearms!!
    Grece need to change this. There are statistics in places like Australia and Canada that do keep statistics on all firearm usage. Those don’t show any increased safety with owning firearms.

    John Lott is discredited. Tim Lambert paper got pulled mostly because its no longer required.
    http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
    Finally, while the evidence linking between the rate at which permits are issued and the drops in crime rates is important, it is only one portion of the evidence. For example, if there was no change in the number of people carrying concealed handguns, why did violent crime rates in neighboring counties without the law increase at the same time that they were falling in neighboring counties with the right-to-carry law?
    Every time John Lott been reviewed it been found flawed in even in usage of the USA data that exists.

  12. Grece says:

    I agree Robert! There are no statistics kept on defensive use of firearms!!

    Great Point!

  13. Grece says:

    GOP refusing Robert? That’s old news!

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.

    So what did the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal?

    1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker

    2. Defensive uses of guns are common

    Do you really want to discuss this further?

  14. Grece wrote, “why don’t they use recent data and recent peer reviewed statistical studies?”

    How about the GOP refusing to allow such collection ?

  15. Grece says:

    Firearms ownership is just one factor in civilization, not a panacea.

    Hmmmmmm, hey Robert, “firearms” could be replaced with say, oh I don’t know, “electric cars” or “Debian Linux”, could it not?

  16. Grece says:

    As a emeritus wizard, you should recognize the fact that these idiots, Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes, make superfluous claims without any evidence. If gun control groups, or any person that follows uneducated dogma, want to discredit John Lott, why don’t they use recent data and recent peer reviewed statistical studies?

    Those purporting to debunk Dr. Lott use expired data or data from places (countries) where they don’t keep reliable stats and barely document the use of weapons other than guns in considering violent crime. These stats show gun crimes as extremely low as they don’t want to admit that their gun control measures don’t work. Only the criminals have the guns in those places.

    Gun control groups always complain that Congress took away the funding to specifically research gun violence yet the CDC and FBI offers firearm use statistics annually. Aren’t there enough movie stars, musicians and billionaires to fund a peer reviewed and reproducible study each year? Come on!

    Dr Lott uses legitimate historical and current data provided by the CDC and FBI for his theories and conclusions.

    I would offer a suggestion, go live in downtown Chicago or Detroit, your choice, for one month, without a gun and with a gun. Then after each month, record the amount of crime that was personally transgressed against you and cite that as empirical evidence. Why Robert could even create a spreadsheet for you!

  17. Grece wrote, “According to Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, concealed carry permit holders are among the nation’s most law-abiding citizens.”

    That’s probably true because they receive some scrutiny but increasing the number/kinds of firearms on the market increases availability to the evildoers too. As long as they can obtain firearms more easily, they will do more harm and the good guys can’t do much to prevent/minimize drive-by killings which are the newsmakers in Chicago. Are good guys going to move into the crime-ridden areas? I doubt it. People with enough money to buy firearms are more likely to buy nice property in the suburbs. I’m a good guy. I wouldn’t move to Chicago even if I were paid to go there. Lott’s thesis is that firearms ownership is a deterrence. That may be true in some areas but in others firearms ownership just empowers criminals who don’t have much to live for except drugs, sex and violence. Would firearms ownership help the good people in Mosul who are being shot, bombed and booby-trapped? No. Firearms ownership is just one factor in civilization, not a panacea.

  18. Wizard Emeritus says:

    ” According to Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, …”

    You mean, THIS Dr. John Lott, Dougie?

    http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

    An interesting article, don’t you think?

  19. Grece says:

    I’m all for RTKBA, but concealed carry in Chicago or NYC or LA will not make the world a better place. It might make for a drop in purse-snatching but the road rage, murder, and manslaughter rates might skyrocket.

    And how may tell will the manslaughter rates skyrocket? I would like to see your evidence on this matter, unless of course you are just mouthing your opinion again. According to Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, concealed carry permit holders are among the nation’s most law-abiding citizens. Florida has issued the most carry permits – nearly 2 million — but revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

    How many concealed carry permit-holders are located in Canada Robert?

  20. Grece says:

    The two things I want to see is, national reciprocity for concealed-carry and amendment to the NFA, removing suppressors. I doubt the Hughes Amendment could be dissolved, but who knows what will happen in eight years. We may see a unified Korea in short-order.

  21. Old Bill says:

    I believe that someone with a gun has an obligation to be responsible for it, but, in the absence of anything factual that would show the person to be irresponsible, anyone should be allowed to have a gun. As to concealment, I think I prefer that any such gun be kept out of sight as well. Nothing is more unnerving than to see someone flaunting the fact that they are armed and willing to take on any adversary.

    I don’t see any good reason to not keep track of firearms either. If a firearm is recovered in a situation where some sort of damage has been caused, it is reasonable to be able to assess liability. Just about everywhere you have to register and license cars, boats, trailers, airplanes,, etc., for that reason, so why not firearms?

    I am more concerned, though, that so many people assume that a Supreme Court judge is going to be more likely to rule on an issue due to his/her personal bias than due to any sort of persuasive argument based on the laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *