Gun law question

[Mike D]

by free states, do you mean states that dont require a 100% background check like cali?

Why yes, yes I do.

Meaning states that don't require private sales to go through an FFL transfer.


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

[batmaninja]

During the search of his home, police found a dozen weapons, ranging from registered handguns to a shotgun and unregistered assault-style rifles, plus a gallon bag of pot, anxiety medication and a small amount of methamphetamine at his home.

Another gun law question, you hear in the media a lot "unregistered" gun. The first example that came to mind was Chum Lee, who also had drugs and the cops got called for an unrelated instance. Just curious, I am guessing each state is different, but more curious about TX laws.

[Ironman]

During the search of his home, police found a dozen weapons, ranging from registered handguns to a shotgun and unregistered assault-style rifles, plus a gallon bag of pot, anxiety medication and a small amount of methamphetamine at his home.

Another gun law question, you hear in the media a lot "unregistered" gun. The first example that came to mind was Chum Lee, who also had drugs and the cops got called for an unrelated instance. Just curious, I am guessing each state is different, but more curious about TX laws.

There is no gun registration in Texas. There is no federal gun registration. Some states (California) may require registration of some gun types.

[ladrones]

Can someone break down the 9th circuits ruling that was made today about being no constitutional right to CC a firearm.

Might need it's own thread.

http://www.guns.com/2016/06/09/9th-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-restrictive-may-issue-concealed-carry-laws/

[tvc184]

Can someone break down the 9th circuits ruling that was made today about being no constitutional right to CC a firearm.

Might need it's own thread.

http://www.guns.com/2016/06/09/9th-c...ed-carry-laws/

It means that the 9th Circuit Court ruled that in CA, WA, OR, NV, AZ, ID and MT the state does not have to issue a CHL or whatever a state may call it. in CA they have a state statute that says you have to show "a need" or something like that to qualify for a CHL and I suspect that they think no one has that need.

A federal circuit court (one step below the Supreme Court) consists of several judges, I think normally from 14-19 or so depending on which circuit. A rotating 3 judge panel picked at random normally hear individual cases at the circuit level. That 3 judge panel ruled in the CA case that a CHL was a 2nd Amendment right. Normally that ends a case unless the SCOTUS overrules it. There is an option that is not often used called "en banc" (entire court) to hear the case again but in front of the entire court and not just 3 judges.

The anti-gunners on the 9th Circuit voted enough to hear it "en banc" and they overruled the 3 judge panel. I think it was a 7-4 vote.

That does not mean that a state cannot issue a CHL. It only means that US Constitution/2nd Amendment does not require the state to do so or allow you to carry concealed.

This ruling only applies to those state that I listed. This conflicts with other circuit court rulings that a permit should be issued I think it was the 7th Circuit that ruled fairly recently that IL had to issue CHLs.

Normally when there are major conflicting rulings of such a nature, the SCOTUS will hear the case. Basically you have part of the court (actually most of it) that has ruled that a CHL is a right or there simply is no ruling at all.

This case almost certainly will be appealed to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately with the massive GOP "anyone but Trump" movement, Hillary is likely to win and get to appoint the next few justices on the SCOTUS. That would mean that the SCOTUS will likely in the near future rule that there is no constitutional carry and a state does not have to issue a CHL. Even in the current 8 judge court (minus Scalia), a tie goes to the runner or in this case, the 9th Circuit.

So folks, hang on. We are likely about to get a SCOTUS ruling (in the next 2-3 years) that we have no concealed carry rights. The SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald said that a person has the right to have a handgun "in the home" and that gun ownership was an individual right, not a militia right. They did not however address how a gun can be carried outside of the home and that I am sure, is soon to follow with poor results.

Food for thought for those that will not vote for Trump out of protest. Yep, that'll show em'!!!!!!

[tvc184]

Can someone break down the 9th circuits ruling that was made today about being no constitutional right to CC a firearm.

Might need it's own thread.

http://www.guns.com/2016/06/09/9th-c...ed-carry-laws/

And in short, it really only means that CA can continue to deny a CHL to the masses. Other states that have a CHL program, even in the 9th Circuit, can continue to issue them. It changes little else for anyone, even CA, however it should have a chilling effect on what might come in the near future and gun rights.

[Let's go Brandon!]

I have read somewhere that BHO is trying to end the person to person sales. The administration wants anyone who buys or sells a firearm to have an FFL. I would imagine that if Clinton gets elected there is going to be some changes on guns. Probably why there have been so many guns sales the past year or so.

Man... they should put an end to person to person sales of meth, cocaine and oxy...


oh, wait...

[Bill]

I think what it means is the counties (like mine) Sheriffs who do not want to issue, can continue to do so. County Sheriffs who want to issue, can continue to do so.

Just remember in Bernie Sanders state of Vermont there is a 4473, then open and concealed carry are legal- no permit required,


..... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[tvc184]

I think what it means is the counties (like mine) Sheriffs who do not want to issue, can continue to do so. County Sheriffs who want to issue, can continue to do so.

Just remember in Bernie Sanders state of Vermont there is a 4473, then open and concealed carry are legal- no permit required,


..... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes. They only held that the county or city has the authority to not issue permits.

Reading the case, they go all the way back to like the 1300's in England saying that they did not have the right to carry concealed back then. Hmmm.....

Strangely, they left the question of open carry in place of concealed carry by saying this:

The Second Amendment may or may not protect to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly. But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry.

It looks like they may believe that some form of carry should be allowed however the plaintiff in this case did not ask that question so they did not answer it.