3 ms·
> Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms Almost every appellate court below does in some capacity. As does the original text of the Second A
by 15155 11y ago
> Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms
Almost every appellate court below does in some capacity.
As does the original text of the Second Amendment (as you said.)
But again, how are you going to stop violent gang members from getting firearms without infringing on the law abiding?
Why not focus on the problem: rehabilitating the violent individuals + improving mental health, instead of hoplophobic, knee-jerk legislation.
- hga 11y agoWhen it's come to the Federal appellate courts and concealed carry, only the 7th (Illinois) has (ordering shall issue, which Illinois acquiesced to without drama (!)), with the 9th looking to reverse the positive Peruta v. San Diego County district court decision (which would also hit Hawaii). It's still in progress for D.C., and the 1st-4th did not, and the Supremes denied cert. Hasn't and won't in the foreseeable future come up for 5-6th, 8th, and 10-11th circuits. So with the score currently 1-4 at the appellate level and 0-4 with the Supremes, I don't find the Federal legal situation at all encouraging, since there's no state that forbids all unloaded movements of guns, I don't see much wiggle room for your "in some capacity".