# SCOTUS to Decide First-Ever Gun-Carry Case



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Don't call me optimistic as the SCOTUS has declined to hear similar cases and other cases supported by the 2ND Amendment just recently.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday it would take the first gun-carry case in its history. The Court agreed to hear a case challenging New York’s restrictive gun-carry law. The case, filed by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and backed by the NRA, argues New York’s refusal to grant gun-carry permits to law-abiding residents on the basis of self-defense violates the Second Amendment. It is the first case dealing with gun carry outside the home to be considered by the Court. The case’s outcome will have massive implications for gun laws across the country. If the Supreme Court decides to strike down New York’s restrictive law, it could create a cascade effect toppling restrictive gun-carry laws in several other states, including California and New Jersey.


----------



## Tanya49! (Jun 20, 2020)

I don’t hold much faith in SCOTUS. It wouldn’t surprise me if Joey , Chuckie and Nancy went to Roberts 
and told him to uphold NYs law or we will pack your court. I compare it to the Chauvin trial jury. Convict or 
we’ll burn it down. What say you? Hope I’m wrong.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

If they remember four words, it shouldn't be a problem...

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

We'll see.....


----------



## Tanya49! (Jun 20, 2020)

Joe says not absolute!


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

This SCOTUS???
I will be surprised if they do!


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Although I cannot remember, I think this "Wisconsin CCW Act" has simply been forgotten. In fact, when someone asks me about when the law went into effect, I have to admit I think it's "four or six years ago." In a very real sense, I don't even know that many guys who applied for a license. I'll bet it's 'ten to one' on who barefoots and who has applied for any form of licensing, period.

I do know I applied for the license as one of its firsts; I have secret slot in my wallet for licenses and bail money. I got some return legal paper in the mail, in fact, I don't even think that envelope or any other held some form of legal carry card. If my wife sends me out for groceries I just slip on a shirt with tails or a jean jacket over my pistol and never give it another thought.

Oh, it gets better. I now live in a very nice upscale suburban neighborhood. The local police know my first name, and I don't think I've been patted down even once after we moved here.

It's either beauty or my thick gray hair, but I don't think loaded firearms and/or switchblades scare anyone any more...


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

The Tourist said:


> Although I cannot remember, I think this "Wisconsin CCW Act" has simply been forgotten. In fact, when someone asks me about when the law went into effect, I have to admit I think it's "four or six years ago." In a very real sense, I don't even know that many guys who applied for a license. I'll bet it's 'ten to one' on who barefoots and who has applied for any form of licensing, period.
> 
> I do know I applied for the license as one of its firsts; I have secret slot in my wallet for licenses and bail money. I got some return legal paper in the mail, in fact, I don't even think that envelope or any other held some form of legal carry card. If my wife sends me out for groceries I just slip on a shirt with tails or a jean jacket over my pistol and never give it another thought.
> 
> ...


The knife and the gun don’t care whether anyone is scared of them. They perform functions that their master chooses: like killing dopes, or wounding dopes, making a mess of a gang of dopes, etc. You get my point.🤔


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

*You get my point.*

Oh, I read your clearly. From 1964 until 1972 I never left the school or college grounds without something for safety. Frankly, this was a very peculiar time. The boys quit watching The Green Bay Packers and the hoods started searching for loners on the old "Lakeshore Path." There even was a young scam artist that told folks he had a rich uncle but he didn't have enough money to buy this uncle out--he just needed a 'college boy' to loan him the money.

In my dorm was a Sheboygan Untouchable with the nickname of "Mogie." I was an up and coming CC Rider. We walked each other through dim streets and Sterling Hall bombers--all without a scratch...


----------



## theprincipal (Mar 18, 2021)

Whatever they decide, my guess is it won’t be “all or nothing”. My hope is that SCOTUS guarantees the right to conceal carry, but without a doubt there will be limitations.... There always have been and there always will be some limitations.


----------



## Megamom134 (Jan 30, 2021)

They have been trying this forever but each time they seem to chip away at a small part of our rights. It bears watching. I have an alternative site and if they don't have a warrant to search it they are SOOL.


----------



## 65mustang (Apr 4, 2020)

They won't hear the case until October, if they hear it at all. Spineless traitors.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Tanya49! said:


> Joe says not absolute!


He says that while completely ignoring the fact that only one protection of a right is worded in absolute terms.
Not "should not"... not "try not to"... not "avoid if at all possible"... but "SHALL NOT BE".
"Shall" was specifically chosen for that amendment. It was intended to enforce what was absolutely mandatory for the amendment to be adhered to.
It made it mandatory that infringement not occur.
Any infringement violates the amendment.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> He says that while completely ignoring the fact that only one protection of a right is worded in absolute terms.
> Not "should not"... not "try not to"... not "avoid if at all possible"... but "SHALL NOT BE".
> "Shall" was specifically chosen for that amendment. It was intended to enforce what was absolutely mandatory for the amendment to be adhered to.
> It made it mandatory that infringement not occur.
> Any infringement violates the amendment.


Until they decide what the meaning of "shall" is. SCOTUS could decide that while the founders said one thing, what they really meant was another and they would be happy to provide us with that interpretation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Until they decide what the meaning of "shall" is. SCOTUS could decide that while the founders said one thing, what they really meant was another and they would be happy to provide us with that interpretation.


What aggravates me is, there is already precedent to settle this, and it's largely ignored.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243(1846)
The opinion that overruled a lower court included the following:


> “The right of the people to bear arms shall not he infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such, merely as are used by the militia, *shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree* ; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.`


It's almost like the whole matter was settled, and then conveniently forgotten until Scalia quoted this in the Heller decision.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> What aggravates me is, there is already precedent to settle this, and it's largely ignored.
> 
> Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243(1846)
> The opinion that overruled a lower court included the following:
> ...


There have been politicians trying to turn this into a socialist country for decades, possibly a century. Memory of things can be easily forgotten if one chooses to. 

There are so many gun laws on the books anyhow and yet they want more. And it will be so until they accomplish their goal.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

With the skeletons the dems have rattling in Rober's closet . . . there will be little good if any come of it. Would not surprise me to see one or more write opinions echoing Biden's "you don't need 100 rounds to kill a deer, they're not wearing kevlar vests". That includes Amy Barret . . . a Torey if there ever was one.


----------

