Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry
The Washington Times ^ | November 27, 2017 | Alex Swoyer

Posted on 11/27/2017 9:16:15 AM PST by jazusamo

The Supreme Court declined to take up two Second Amendment cases on Monday, which challenged laws banning assault weapons and open-carry in Maryland and Florida.

Both cases were denied review without comment from the justices, which left the lower court rulings in place.

In the Florida challenge, the state Supreme Court upheld Florida’s ban on open carry finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; florida; largecapmags; lawsuit; maryland; opencarry; scotus; secondamendment; semiautorifles; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last
To: robroys woman

It doesn’t say how you should carry at all. The court is just making up their own little rule...for their state...but the Bill of Rights is Federal and pertains to all states and EVERY person.


41 posted on 11/27/2017 10:02:10 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GOPe Means Bend Over Spell Run

You can bear it if it becomes necessary for you to do so. i.e. there is justification that you are in a situation where it is appropriate to discharge the weapon.


42 posted on 11/27/2017 10:02:15 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The SCOTUS will not hear such controversial cases such as denied individual right of the Second Amendment. So much for their oath of office. What good is the SCOTUS to the American people?


43 posted on 11/27/2017 10:04:12 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman
Once they get Open Carry out of the way, their next Target is Concealed Carry.

Once they get Concealed Carry out of the way, their next target is Gun Registration.

Once they get Gun Registration out of the way, their next target is Gun Ownership.

Incremental-ism is the tool of Liberal Tyranny. They have always been very patient in achieving their goals. They have taken over every Institution in America, the Courts, the Education System, the Entertainment Industry and the News Media. The Congress is infested with Liberals from both Political Parties who have rendered the United States Constitution null and void when they approve Legislation. When you think of Liberalism, remember this passage from the Movie The Terminator. "It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear...and it absolutely will not stop. Ever."

44 posted on 11/27/2017 10:06:55 AM PST by Kickass Conservative ( Democracy, two Wolves and one Sheep deciding what's for Dinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman
You can carry, they can’t infringe that right. But if they say you can’t carry outside your clothing, they are not infringing that right since you can still carry. The right is not infringed.

Tell that to New Jersey and a plethora of other states who require that you beg their permission to even purchase, let alone carry a firearm. Since the permission may be denied (and carry almost always is denied here), it is a clear infringement.

45 posted on 11/27/2017 10:07:04 AM PST by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
#37: "BTW, is the Court required to give a reason for declining to take up these cases? "

I don't think so. However, you can bet your bippy that George W. Bush appointee John Roberts was in on the fix.

George W. Bush Retard

46 posted on 11/27/2017 10:07:18 AM PST by Governor Dinwiddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

This ruling says that any state in the Union can ban any firearm they determine to be a “military” or “assault” weapon.

What could the 2nd Amendment possibly be referring to more clearly than a “military” firearm?


47 posted on 11/27/2017 10:08:09 AM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Tell that to New Jersey and a plethora of other states who require that you beg their permission to even purchase, let alone carry a firearm. Since the permission may be denied (and carry almost always is denied here), it is a clear infringement.


I don’t think that would survive SCOTUS scrutiny.


48 posted on 11/27/2017 10:08:48 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

If a state has both open and concealed carry eliminated, they have violated the constitution. I believe universal conceal carry is more constitutionally justified than open carry. A lot of people don’t know this, but it was quite common in the “old west” CIVILIZED towns to not be allowed to have an open carry gun on your person, regardless of what Hollywood and TV suggest.

It’s dangerous.

And I’m a strong supporter of it if conceal carry is not allowed, or difficult to get. If you can’t carry at all, your rights are being infringed.


49 posted on 11/27/2017 10:11:58 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman
finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.

How do I conceal this, which was the common weapon at the time the founders wrote the second, morons.



50 posted on 11/27/2017 10:15:37 AM PST by itsahoot (As long as there is money to be divided, there will be division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

In the Movie Tombstone, Johnny Ringo open carried his Gun. LOL


51 posted on 11/27/2017 10:18:18 AM PST by Kickass Conservative ( Democracy, two Wolves and one Sheep deciding what's for Dinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

If it can not be concealed, you should have the right to open carry. Otherwise, the right to carry is being infringed.


52 posted on 11/27/2017 10:18:34 AM PST by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Bonemaker
Who on the court makes these decisions?

The Justices themselves. If four or more vote to hear the case then they hear the case. This means that three Justices or fewer voted for it.

53 posted on 11/27/2017 10:19:16 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I’m concerned with upholding the “assault weapon” ban for several reasons:

It invites further distortion of the term “assault weapon”.

It emboldens other states to attempt such restrictions.

Expanded restrictions invite open rebellion.


54 posted on 11/27/2017 10:19:34 AM PST by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

I have always been so grateful I wasn’t born with one of those things, it frees me up to obsess about more important things.


55 posted on 11/27/2017 10:21:38 AM PST by submarinerswife (Allahu FUBAR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bonemaker; All
"Who on the court makes these decisions?"

Not only is that a good question, but Congress should be asking that question imo. Well, maybe after 2018 elections anyway.

In order to thoroughly clean the swamp, citizens need to know who is making these decisions.

56 posted on 11/27/2017 10:22:28 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman
I don’t think that would survive SCOTUS scrutiny.

They'd have to HEAR it to scrutinize it, wouldn't they? They are declining to HEAR the two referenced.

57 posted on 11/27/2017 10:22:35 AM PST by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

The military arms of the period were muskets and swords, neither of which can be concealed.


58 posted on 11/27/2017 10:23:52 AM PST by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D. - What Would Jack Bauer Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion.

Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh said the Supreme Court’s decision not to review his state’s “common-sense law” confirms all states have the right to protect their citizens from “weapons of war.”

“Assault weapons, which have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of people in recent months, are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Firearm Safety Act remains the law in Maryland,” Mr. Frosh said.

You, Sir, need to go back to law school.


59 posted on 11/27/2017 10:24:58 AM PST by Paperpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Denied justice is injustice.


60 posted on 11/27/2017 10:26:48 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson