9th District Court Rules Against Concealed Carry in Public

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html?nhp=1

 

"Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public."

 

The vote was 7-4 in against carry concealed weapons in public. Discuss this and what the 2nd amendment should entail.

[mido9]

Is the 2nd amendment just going to keep getting massively eroded like this?

 

I mean, it's basically been chipped all the way down to handguns and Obama wants to make them into "smart guns" still

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

For me one thing is simply that, since they're for protection, it might make more sense to only allow visible anyway. To act as a deterrent. Possibly not but that's a thought that came to mind.

I've never really felt a need for guns personally but that's just me.

[Slinky]

Won't do much to begin with. People who do concealed weapons are the ones generally doing crimes, so its not going to deter them, since y'know, they are criminals anyway.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Tbh, I'm more worried about the nuts who want to open carry everything from handguns to assault rifles than a respectable, law biding citizen who concealed carries.

 

I can see why this happened to an extent, but as Slinky said, I doubt it'll have any effect.

[Christian Exodia]

Never felt a need personally, but I support gun rights.

 

I just shrug at concealed carry because it's not something I would probably need to do. Although I do respect those who do if they have followed the legal process.

[vla1ne]

this is enough. the 2nd amendment has now been shrunk down so far that aside from better background checks, i cannot reasonably see any other way to shrink it that wouldn't just remove it altogether. it's been hit hard enough now. next i suppose people will be complaining about the amount of people they see carrying guns in the open because there's no longer concealed carry.

[Snatch Steal]

so, great, gun control.

 

explain what happens in these scenarios:

 

• The government decides "Okay guys, you're all gonna do what we say or we'll kill you, and you can't do anything about it because you don't have any guns."

 

• A nut decides "I'm gonna rob a bank and take hostages, and seeing as I'm already breaking the law there, the Gun Control laws don't apply to me and I can just prey off of the unarmed citizens."

[Aerion Brightflame]

So as a non American - Why is the 2nd Amendment so important compared to other ones? The idea of removing or ratifying it never seems to come up, despite the fact it's happened historically with Prohibition, so it's not like a lack of precident stops it. Is it just because of the age of it? Or because it's inbuilt culturally. Because to me - all it seems to be is a law, and the law can and should change as the desires and needs of population changes 

 

 

 

• The government decides "Okay guys, you're all gonna do what we say or we'll kill you, and you can't do anything about it because you don't have any guns."

 

If the government wants you dead personally, no amount of fire arms will stop you. They have access to far more military hardware than you will ever have access to. Even an armed population probably falls down to the military if it's properly utilised, almost regardless of the level of armament you have because they have greater mobility and a larger destructive capability. Because have you seen how big your military budget is? 

 

It's not especially comparable to say armed rebellions in the middle east, because the gap in equipment is vast in comparison. It's a military that can level buildings from literally hundreds of miles away - If the US government decided to take control and make a police state, you'd need outside intervention to deal with s***. Not a mob with firearms.

 

As far as I can recall, we've never actually had a modern military (As modernised as the US say) decide to take control of a nation so it's all theoretical currently. But I don't think an armed population (With like handguns and s***) really works that well against tanks and I think the largest air force in the world. You'd need military grade hardware to have a chance. 

 

 

• A nut decides "I'm gonna rob a bank and take hostages, and seeing as I'm already breaking the law there, the Gun Control laws don't apply to me and I can just prey off of the unarmed citizens."

 

The situation is resolved as any other hostage situation would be - By well trained and armed police officers, not by the public trying to be a hero. As most situations like that should be handled - Because those people have the necessary f***ing training to deal with situations like that with minimal risk to the hostages. 

 

Like I understand why most people want to have the hero complex in this kinda situation - But an untrained civillian firing shots in a hostage situation will probably make it worse more times than they make it better. Leave it to the people with f***ing training because that is the entire reason they exist. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well it IS the 9th District

 

I guess I'll start writing why this is a poor choice

 

That being said, it's not out right egregious like the "Assault Weapon" Ban people like to throw around 

So as a non American - Why is the 2nd Amendment so important compared to other ones? The idea of removing or ratifying it never seems to come up, despite the fact it's happened historically with Prohibition, so it's not like a lack of precident stops it. Is it just because of the age of it? Or because it's inbuilt culturally. Because to me - all it seems to be is a law, and the law can and should change as the desires and needs of population changes 

 

I mean it's about as important as the 10th, 1st, 13-15th, 19th and a few others

 

stuff like the 3rd and 11th don't come up much

 

It's not so much that we want to stop a Government take over, which Oregon pretty much showed the results of, it's just basic protection of our home and person. As well as recreational activity I guess

[vla1ne]

So as a non American - Why is the 2nd Amendment so important compared to other ones? The idea of removing or ratifying it never seems to come up, despite the fact it's happened historically with Prohibition, so it's not like a lack of precident stops it. Is it just because of the age of it? Or because it's inbuilt culturally. Because to me - all it seems to be is a law, and the law can and should change as the desires and needs of population changes 

it's not considered more important, it is simply the one under the most attack by people wishing to change the law. as such, people wil notice more often because it is targeted more often than the other laws. in fact it is the law that has people attempting to remove/ratify it the most.

 

but as for why we consider it important, guns have become one of americas signaure laws. people have grown up around guns, and myny people have built their businesses around the sale and use of said weapons. by this point in time, guns are as legit of a product as automobiles in america, there is a massive market for them, and it provides significant taxes in america as well as opening up a large amount of jobs, the number's a bit dated, but http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/is a recent enough sample.

 

and yes, it has become a culture, and there is little wrong with that so long as the culture is maintained responsibly. parents taking their kids hunting, or their teens to the shooting range, people in america who establish a relationship with firearms are incredibly abundant. thus this kind of ruling feels like a blow to some of  them personally. 

 

yes, laws can and should change, but where are they going to stop attacking this one? you really think banning concealed carry is going to have any positive effect at all? it's telling law abiding citizens to turn themselves into the first targets of a shooting. no criminal in their right mind (what criminal is in their right mind) is going to pay attention to this. and unlike laws against murder, rape, theft, battery, ect, this law isn't actually for anything constructive, it just makes innocent people with guns the first targets. but beyond even that again, now that concealed carry's banned, how long will it be before these same people get upset that they can now see the guns? it's the kind of law that's going to cause more problems than it's worth. i can get behind background checks, i can support outlawing auto and semi-auto weapons, but this is just going to cause more issues in the long run.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I've always wondered why they don't talk about that part of it. A "peoples" army might be an interesting concept in reality

[Nathanael D. Striker]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I've always wondered why they don't talk about that part of it. A "peoples" army might be an interesting concept in reality

 

One could argue that the National Guard fulfills the role of a militia, though them being able to be deployed by the federal government makes me doubt that. I wonder if the 9th District Court prefers a situation like Texas and their Open Carry. Oh wait, nope...

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Don't forget Georgia and their guns everywhere law.

 

 

it's not considered more important, it is simply the one under the most attack by people wishing to change the law. as such, people wil notice more often because it is targeted more often than the other laws. in fact it is the law that has people attempting to remove/ratify it the most.

 

but as for why we consider it important, guns have become one of americas signaure laws. people have grown up around guns, and myny people have built their businesses around the sale and use of said weapons. by this point in time, guns are as legit of a product as automobiles in america, there is a massive market for them, and it provides significant taxes in america as well as opening up a large amount of jobs, the number's a bit dated, but http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/is a recent enough sample.

 

and yes, it has become a culture, and there is little wrong with that so long as the culture is maintained responsibly. parents taking their kids hunting, or their teens to the shooting range, people in america who establish a relationship with firearms are incredibly abundant. thus this kind of ruling feels like a blow to some of them personally.

 

yes, laws can and should change, but where are they going to stop attacking this one? you really think banning concealed carry is going to have any positive effect at all? it's telling law abiding citizens to turn themselves into the first targets of a shooting. no criminal in their right mind (what criminal is in their right mind) is going to pay attention to this. and unlike laws against murder, rape, theft, battery, ect, this law isn't actually for anything constructive, it just makes innocent people with guns the first targets. but beyond even that again, now that concealed carry's banned, how long will it be before these same people get upset that they can now see the guns? it's the kind of law that's going to cause more problems than it's worth. i can get behind background checks, i can support outlawing auto and semi-auto weapons, but this is just going to cause more issues in the long run.

I personally do not agree with hunting, but you hit the nail on the head here. To add to this, there's no way in hell the 2nd amendment would actually be removed, and even if it was, how'd you get all 100 million guns, probably more, off the streets?

 

Guns are a cultural thing in America, and whether people outside or within the country think that's good or bad, that needs to be respected as such.

[Slinky]

wasn't the 2nd ammendment originally intended for citizens to be able to fend off invaders, due to being a new country? Me thinks we don't need that anymore. Me thinks we don't need weapons in public anymore, outside of authorities, and they should be kept in homes to protect yourselves from break-ins.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Am I the only one thinking it's weird to think of guns as "cultural"? idk just doesn't sit well with me.

[vla1ne]

there's far stranger cultures than gun ownership in the world. so long as proper background checks and education are present, gun culture is as legit a culture aspect as any other.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

there's far stranger cultures than gun ownership in the world. so long as proper background checks and education are present, gun culture is as legit a culture aspect as any other.

To be fair a lot aren't potentially violent. (And those that are tend to be looked down on as either savage or cruel). Just feels sometimes hypocritical of Americans to point out certain cultural things as wrong with this.

I guess to me guns are a tool, but one that should be used as little as possible.

[vla1ne]

it needs some work for safety, but it's legit as a culture. imo guns aren't the issue, it's the people who suffer from high poverty and those with mental issues. fix the causes of crime (poverty, poor education, better diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions, ect) and the crime rate will drop accordingly. as for the topic in question, i've got a few more things to say for it.

 

this new ruling provides no benefits from a legal sense, it does not cover anything illegal or harmful that already existing laws couldn't cover, it merely restricts the rights of law abiding citizens. saying "no criminal would care" is already obvious, but in this case the question is not "would criminals care?" it's "would it hurt more innocent people than criminals?" and the answer is an emphatic yes. it will likely lead to more innocent civilians being arrested than criminals considering it only covers a nonviolent, and currently normal behavior. in addition to this, open carry is illegal in some states, meaning if this were allowed to pass nation wide, it would be an effective ban upon guns for regular citizens. this law fails to even cover the symptoms of the problems that really need addressing. people who felt uncomfortable around guns didn't have to look at those who possessed them thanks to concealed carry laws, and criminals would likely be less willing to shoot off, or start crimes in general, in an area where everybody and their mother might be carrying a pistol as well, this law is not just damaging to the 2nd amendment, it's damaging to normal citizens who have no intention of breaking the law, but may want to carry a gun just in case the cops aren't going to get there in time. again, i support detailed/extensive background checks and the like, because they are an actually effective measure to prevent nutcases and criminals from getting weapons legally. this law on the other hand is not gun control, it is gun suppression. it is a potential attempt to smother the 2nd amendment using multiple conflicting laws. 

 

if you don't like guns, don't buy them, and by all means stay as far away from them as possible, but please, for the love of logic, don't support laws like this.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Alright, we have officially moved into Debates. Now, part of the prompt is what the Second Amendment should entail. For me, the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. There are cases where the public interest should outweigh the right to bear arms. Universal Background Checks, limited Concealed Carry, ban on assault weapons (definition is up for debate), etc. I'm not for taking away guns from people, but people shouldn't have whatever gun that comes to mind. Hunting guns should be in hunting rifles, pistols for self-defense, etc. Each gun has a use, and I'm not much of a fan of people going above and beyond.

[vla1ne]

second amendment to me entails any gun, but within actual reason. for example, as striker said, if you want to hunt, then rifles and semi-automatic guns would be appropriate, if you want to protect yourself as you walk down the street, then a pistol, of varying caliber, according to what you can handle, would be appropriate. ect. what i think the second amendment should also entaii though is proper education about said objects. the people shouldn't possess something like a gun if they're unwilling to learn and respect the responsibilities that come with it.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

second amendment to me entails any gun, but within actual reason. for example, as striker said, if you want to hunt, then rifles and semi-automatic guns would be appropriate, if you want to protect yourself as you walk down the street, then a pistol, of varying caliber, according to what you can handle, would be appropriate. ect. what i think the second amendment should also entaii though is proper education about said objects. the people shouldn't possess something like a gun if they're unwilling to learn and respect the responsibilities that come with it.

 

I agree on the education. Guns are dangerous things, and people should know what they are dealing with when exercising their right to have them. Otherwise, they can potentially become more of a threat than what they are trying to protect themselves from.

[epicmemesbro]

Some states do require those applying for a firearm to be trained and are tested to make sure they know how to handle one. But a lot of states, mostly the south don't and view it as an option and some see it being required as a violation to their right. 

[vla1ne]

some see it being required as a violation to their right. 

those are the people who do not deserve to possess a firearm. a gun is no joke, whether or not you support them, if you don't want to learn about them before you own them, then you deserve to have your right stripped from you. they are made to take lives, you do not ever take that lightly.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Why not change things to suit the initial purpose of the Amendment, i.e the milita aspect? Say that people are more than welcome to own guns if they undergo voluntary training for a peoples militia for an extended period of time. It even solves part of the paranoia people have about the goverment, because at least then the general populace will have some kind of formal military training to support them shortly before the government rains hellfire down upon them.