I need to read the decision when I get some time, but does the SCOTUS prohibition on carry rights outside the home only apply to public spaces, or does it go as far as preventing private property owners from also keeping weapons off their premises? After the city of Chicago lost the McDonald case[1], there was a proliferation of "no gun" signs that many (most?) businesses posted to prohibit carry on premises as enacted in an Illinois law[2].
Interesting articles Chris and it does beg the question doesn't it? I live in an age restricted (55 and older) community in Arizona. I was watching the annual membership meeting from our sister community yesterday and one of the comments shocked me. A member got up and said it's time to allow guns of the property, safer he said if members were packing.
When we first moved to AZ, members were allowed to carry. Then when a disgruntled member shot and killed the folks running a meeting in a nearby community, everyone posted the properties, no guns allowed. Initially a handful wined, i felt safer. I knew a few who did carry at meetings and was never comfortable.
Some one help me here: if more guns are to be our salvation, why with gun ownership since the sunset of the crime bill in 2004, have mass shootings gone up, not down? It's rhetorical because the obvious answer is, we need even more guns to be safe(r). Right.
My understanding is that private property owners can prohibit guns, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, pizzas, dogs and other humans from their property. In Georgia private property owners can post no guns allowed and have toters removed if they do not comply.
I'm always intrigued by your writing Steve and this article is no exception. My immediate response was to go see what was being said, here's a couple of takes: The first one from Reuters and an interview with the litigant: "Tom King, the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, has hailed the Supreme Court's ruling that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense."
The second one from an AP article: "While the ruling does not address any other laws, the majority opinion opens the door for gun rights advocates to challenge them in the future, said Alex McCourt, the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Pro-firearms groups in several states said they plan to do just that.
Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the group is preparing to expand its legal challenges based on the high court changing the legal standard used to assess whether gun control laws are constitutional.
Courts must now consider only whether a gun control regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment’s actual text and its historical understanding, according to Thursday’s ruling. Before that, judges also could consider a state’s social justification for passing a gun control law.
Michel said the standard will affect three prominent California laws. Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons, its requirement for background checks for buying ammunition and its ban on online ammunition sales are pending before a federal appellate court.
“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” he said"
Great open carry everywhere, no training needed, no reason. Hell, just strap them at birth, the world will be a better place.
I need to read the decision when I get some time, but does the SCOTUS prohibition on carry rights outside the home only apply to public spaces, or does it go as far as preventing private property owners from also keeping weapons off their premises? After the city of Chicago lost the McDonald case[1], there was a proliferation of "no gun" signs that many (most?) businesses posted to prohibit carry on premises as enacted in an Illinois law[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
[2] https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131114/river-north/no-guns-allowed-signs-start-pop-up-advance-of-concealed-carry-law/
Interesting articles Chris and it does beg the question doesn't it? I live in an age restricted (55 and older) community in Arizona. I was watching the annual membership meeting from our sister community yesterday and one of the comments shocked me. A member got up and said it's time to allow guns of the property, safer he said if members were packing.
When we first moved to AZ, members were allowed to carry. Then when a disgruntled member shot and killed the folks running a meeting in a nearby community, everyone posted the properties, no guns allowed. Initially a handful wined, i felt safer. I knew a few who did carry at meetings and was never comfortable.
Some one help me here: if more guns are to be our salvation, why with gun ownership since the sunset of the crime bill in 2004, have mass shootings gone up, not down? It's rhetorical because the obvious answer is, we need even more guns to be safe(r). Right.
My understanding is that private property owners can prohibit guns, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, pizzas, dogs and other humans from their property. In Georgia private property owners can post no guns allowed and have toters removed if they do not comply.
I'm always intrigued by your writing Steve and this article is no exception. My immediate response was to go see what was being said, here's a couple of takes: The first one from Reuters and an interview with the litigant: "Tom King, the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, has hailed the Supreme Court's ruling that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense."
The second one from an AP article: "While the ruling does not address any other laws, the majority opinion opens the door for gun rights advocates to challenge them in the future, said Alex McCourt, the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Pro-firearms groups in several states said they plan to do just that.
Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the group is preparing to expand its legal challenges based on the high court changing the legal standard used to assess whether gun control laws are constitutional.
Courts must now consider only whether a gun control regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment’s actual text and its historical understanding, according to Thursday’s ruling. Before that, judges also could consider a state’s social justification for passing a gun control law.
Michel said the standard will affect three prominent California laws. Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons, its requirement for background checks for buying ammunition and its ban on online ammunition sales are pending before a federal appellate court.
“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” he said"
Great open carry everywhere, no training needed, no reason. Hell, just strap them at birth, the world will be a better place.
I'm pretty sure states can require licenses and set firearms safety and training as licensing conditions.