• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS refuses to hear "shall issue" case

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Well, even in the Pureta case...the court still ruled that one can still be required to show "good cause". So that case was a bust IMO. And Pureta still will not be able to get a permit due to residency issues.

The Moore case is better from Illinois.

SCOTUS is not going to take any significant cases for years and years ... heck, it took them until Heller and McDonald to even acknowledge that we have the RKBA ~ 200 yrs to decide this ...

I don't need anyone in robes telling me what the 2nd amendment means...its pretty much self-explanatory and we have the natural right to KBA ...

Anyone hoping for relief from the gov't or SCOTUS has been deluding themselves.
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Well, even in the Pureta case...the court still ruled that one can still be required to show "good cause". So that case was a bust IMO. And Pureta still will not be able to get a permit due to residency issues.

The Moore case is better from Illinois.

SCOTUS is not going to take any significant cases for years and years ... heck, it took them until Heller and McDonald to even acknowledge that we have the RKBA ~ 200 yrs to decide this ...

I don't need anyone in robes telling me what the 2nd amendment means...its pretty much self-explanatory and we have the natural right to KBA ...

Anyone hoping for relief from the gov't or SCOTUS has been deluding themselves.

Peruta.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Well, even in the Pureta case...the court still ruled that one can still be required to show "good cause". So that case was a bust IMO. And Pureta still will not be able to get a permit due to residency issues.

Anyone hoping for relief from the gov't or SCOTUS has been deluding themselves.


the court that ruled that had no right to do so. New Jersey, California, Illinois and indeed infringements in all 50 states are there because we the militia have laid down our arms so to speak and accepted them in all but name. There is too much political back and forth, too much maneuvering for this and that. This case simply proves we as the militia need to dictate to our government.

I'm quite sure there will be those who think i'm crazy but all they need to do is look at their gun licence. Money they allowed to be extorted from them to exercise a right they had anyway
 

cirrusly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
291
Location
North Dakota
Well, even in the Pureta case...the court still ruled that one can still be required to show "good cause". So that case was a bust IMO.

Interesting, and correct: The court held the "good cause" was too narrow and unable to "distinguish [himself] from the mainstream," but the "good cause" requirement was not abolished altogether.

However, practical application of this is slowing resulting in "shall issue" so I do not consider it a complete bust.

And Pureta still will not be able to get a permit due to residency issues.

Source please? Not refuting this, but didn't hear the plaintiff was actually denied the permit following the ruling...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Interesting, and correct: The court held the "good cause" was too narrow and unable to "distinguish [himself] from the mainstream," but the "good cause" requirement was not abolished altogether.

However, practical application of this is slowing resulting in "shall issue" so I do not consider it a complete bust.



Source please? Not refuting this, but didn't hear the plaintiff was actually denied the permit following the ruling...

Just from articles I read ... I did not save the links ... perhaps someone else can confirm with a link.

Yes, saying "self defense" is a magnitude better than in NJ as they currently do. The CA court ruled like typical morons ... keep the requirement just make it meaningless.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
They have done a good job of avoiding the issue for the last 70 years.

When I was dealing in Illinois during the time period of Chicago handgun bans, I was selling a lot of handguns to Chgo. folks.

When Chgo's law enforcement and other agencies contacted me trying to stop me they were met by an American who told them to drop dead and that their law was unconstitutional and I would continue selling handguns to Chgo residents.

They were not happy; why? Because they hate America.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
When I was dealing in Illinois during the time period of Chicago handgun bans, I was selling a lot of handguns to Chgo. folks.

When Chgo's law enforcement and other agencies contacted me trying to stop me they were met by an American who told them to drop dead and that their law was unconstitutional and I would continue selling handguns to Chgo residents.

They were not happy; why? Because they hate America.

Is there anything you haven't done? :lol:
 

Liberty-or-Death

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
411
Location
23235
marshaul: In my experience, folks who love to hear themselves talk tend to have a high number of posts. The reverse is not always consistently true, however.

μολών λαβέ
 
Top