4 ms·

The Constitution mentions no right to drive cars. Nevertheless, attempts to limit drivers' licences by arbitrary criteria would receive a cold reception in the

The Constitution mentions no right to drive cars. Nevertheless, attempts to limit drivers' licences by arbitrary criteria would receive a cold reception in the courts. The government is required to treat everyone with due process.

giantg2 6y ago
That's not true at all. There are states that restrict concealed carry permits by issuing on a may-issue basis, which uses arbitrary criteria. This shows that the courts don't care.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Is it that the courts don’t care or that you yourself disagree with their ruling and think it was wrong? Which would be fine but isn’t the same thing.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It depends on which courts we are talking about. For example, a court in NJ may ignore a case but federal courts may take it up. You can even have split circuits depending on the part of the country the cases were filed in. This leads to one court stating that something is a federally protected right, while a different circuit may rule th opposite. In some of these cases, SCOTUS may decline the case. In that event, you have part of the country being guaranteed a right while the other part might not be, and I believe that would violate equal protection under the law. Not settling the matter in this sort of scenario would in my eyes be "not caring".
    - adamsea 6y ago
      You just gave a whole bunch of examples of various courts caring, but disagreeing. And SCOTUS declining a case doesn't mean they don't care either, their decision not to accept the case is a choice in and of itself and a reading of the law. More so than "not caring", IMHO, what you are describing is disagreement. Now, you may disagree with what I just said, but that doesn't mean that either of us don't care ; ).
- jessaustin 6y ago
  We're jumping around a bit. Even in a may-issue context, if it were clear that a particular sheriff only issued CCW permits to e.g. Asian-Americans, other people would have their day in court.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    That would depend on how egregious the bias is and how much bias is permitted by the law. People who are wealthy and have connections are more likely to receive permits. There has even been bribery discovered. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/20/two-more-guilty-pleas-ccw-scandal/ https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/20/two-more-guilty-ple...
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    It kind of depends on how well the sheriff dressed up their reasoning. We've seen recently from voting cases that if the state can come up with any reason that isn't directly discriminating on race super disproportionate impact suddenly can't be considered by the court because there's a non-racial fig leaf covering it.

giantg2 6y ago

That's not true at all. There are states that restrict concealed carry permits by issuing on a may-issue basis, which uses arbitrary criteria. This shows that the courts don't care.

adamsea 6y ago
Is it that the courts don’t care or that you yourself disagree with their ruling and think it was wrong? Which would be fine but isn’t the same thing.
- giantg2 6y ago
  It depends on which courts we are talking about. For example, a court in NJ may ignore a case but federal courts may take it up. You can even have split circuits depending on the part of the country the cases were filed in. This leads to one court stating that something is a federally protected right, while a different circuit may rule th opposite. In some of these cases, SCOTUS may decline the case. In that event, you have part of the country being guaranteed a right while the other part might not be, and I believe that would violate equal protection under the law. Not settling the matter in this sort of scenario would in my eyes be "not caring".
  - adamsea 6y ago
    You just gave a whole bunch of examples of various courts caring, but disagreeing. And SCOTUS declining a case doesn't mean they don't care either, their decision not to accept the case is a choice in and of itself and a reading of the law. More so than "not caring", IMHO, what you are describing is disagreement. Now, you may disagree with what I just said, but that doesn't mean that either of us don't care ; ).
jessaustin 6y ago
We're jumping around a bit. Even in a may-issue context, if it were clear that a particular sheriff only issued CCW permits to e.g. Asian-Americans, other people would have their day in court.
- giantg2 6y ago
  That would depend on how egregious the bias is and how much bias is permitted by the law. People who are wealthy and have connections are more likely to receive permits. There has even been bribery discovered. https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/20/two-more-guilty-pleas-ccw-scandal/ https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/10/20/two-more-guilty-ple...
- rtkwe 6y ago
  It kind of depends on how well the sheriff dressed up their reasoning. We've seen recently from voting cases that if the state can come up with any reason that isn't directly discriminating on race super disproportionate impact suddenly can't be considered by the court because there's a non-racial fig leaf covering it.