5 ms·

How is it in the public interest if I exercise a right? I see you claimed it above, but it doesn't seem like it to me.

woodruffw 4y ago
Not any right, this specific one. Your right to own a gun is not coextensive with your right to privacy (a right, I may remind you, that has been significantly weakened by SCOTUS this week.) See above for the public interest: people engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. CCWs change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  What a short sighed and foolish way to hand wave away civil rights. Read Madison on all rights are equal and even non-enumerated rights are equal.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I actually have read Madison, thanks. This is a category error: hiding a gun from the public is not a non-enumerated right.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      Carrying a gun in public is “bearing it”, so you are completely wrong according to at least three Supreme Court decisions and easily readable text of the constitution. If you are pretending you want constitutional open carry, we’ll, that’s pretty funny I suppose. Because you definitely don’t.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        This is an extremely tortured reading of "bearing." SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please. Scalia is extremely explicit about this in District of Columbia v. Heller[1]: > Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. [1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290...
        SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        >SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please. Carrying is not brandishing. Hot take there! Did you really just try and cherry pick Heller vs DC to pretend carry is not protected? Read the words you posted... prohibitions have been upheld. And the hilarious next sentence Scialia uses that restores the context to tried to omit: The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Yes, a state can prohibit for felons, mentally ill, etc. If you stopped reading the rest of the opinion, and didn't go on to read McDonald v Chicago 2010, this still implies that a state will allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens. The two options are: 1. You are hard-line and wrong, where all the states with concealed carry now including CA, HI, NJ, MD that will issue permits are respecting civil rights. 2. Everyone has it wrong but you!, in which case, this is surely frustrating. Either way... Concealed carry exists and shall-issue is now the minimum law of the land. More states going to constitutional carry every year. Turns out your desire convince people using frantic posts and omissions doesn't actually change anything. Crazy huh? EDIT: Here is a cool gif that shows states over time. It'll now need to be updated to remove all the may-issue states. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to...
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  People deliberately run people over with cars all the time. It is in my best interest to have a list of every car owned by my neighbor along with his DOB, how many times he failed the driving test, when he got his license and whatever other information related to vehicles and licences. People engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. Cars change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.

Not any right, this specific one. Your right to own a gun is not coextensive with your right to privacy (a right, I may remind you, that has been significantly weakened by SCOTUS this week.) See above for the public interest: people engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. CCWs change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
What a short sighed and foolish way to hand wave away civil rights. Read Madison on all rights are equal and even non-enumerated rights are equal.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I actually have read Madison, thanks. This is a category error: hiding a gun from the public is not a non-enumerated right.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    Carrying a gun in public is “bearing it”, so you are completely wrong according to at least three Supreme Court decisions and easily readable text of the constitution. If you are pretending you want constitutional open carry, we’ll, that’s pretty funny I suppose. Because you definitely don’t.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      This is an extremely tortured reading of "bearing." SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please. Scalia is extremely explicit about this in District of Columbia v. Heller[1]: > Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. [1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290...
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        >SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please. Carrying is not brandishing. Hot take there! Did you really just try and cherry pick Heller vs DC to pretend carry is not protected? Read the words you posted... prohibitions have been upheld. And the hilarious next sentence Scialia uses that restores the context to tried to omit: The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Yes, a state can prohibit for felons, mentally ill, etc. If you stopped reading the rest of the opinion, and didn't go on to read McDonald v Chicago 2010, this still implies that a state will allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens. The two options are: 1. You are hard-line and wrong, where all the states with concealed carry now including CA, HI, NJ, MD that will issue permits are respecting civil rights. 2. Everyone has it wrong but you!, in which case, this is surely frustrating. Either way... Concealed carry exists and shall-issue is now the minimum law of the land. More states going to constitutional carry every year. Turns out your desire convince people using frantic posts and omissions doesn't actually change anything. Crazy huh? EDIT: Here is a cool gif that shows states over time. It'll now need to be updated to remove all the may-issue states. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to_Carry%2C_timeline.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to...
_-david-_ 4y ago
People deliberately run people over with cars all the time. It is in my best interest to have a list of every car owned by my neighbor along with his DOB, how many times he failed the driving test, when he got his license and whatever other information related to vehicles and licences. People engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. Cars change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.