Superlite27
Regular Member
These are just my ramblings and wisps of thought after the 9th circuit's decision on Peruta and may issue, so please withold judgement on the validity of my idea, and simply assist on perfecting the rough idea I'm beginning to develop instead of simply dismissing it as a complete lark at the outset. When I say, "This might" or "probably", it would be beneficial to receive input on why the idea is, or is not sound.
"What a load of crap", or "You don't know what you're talking about" do not serve to develop my rudimentary ideas and form them into something more coherent.
Now that the 9th circuit has confirmed that we, the people don't need to provide a good reason to exercise our rights outside our home I suspect this will be headed for SCOTUS to rectify it with other Federal Court's decisions that we do, and settle the issue once and for all.
I predict that it will probably result in the demise of "may issue" entirely, as the opposite would throw a monkey wrench in the gears of everything and result in more questions rather than settling the issue. (Convince me that this fact doesn't play a role in SCOTUS' decisions. When making a decision to resolve a problem, you can't tell me that the court doesn't take simplicity into account. If someone asks you a question, don't you often answer them with a reply that will make them shut up instead of giving them something that will inevitably result in being asked 1000 more questions?)
So, if we don't need an arbitrary "good cause" to exercise our rights outside of our homes.......
How big does this circle of freedom extend?
After all, SCOTUS answered the question of 2A applicability in our home. This left the question of whether or not rights exist past the threshold of our front door in limbo.
A decision stating that I retain the right to bear arms outside my house makes me wonder:
How far outside my house?
After all, this bubble of freedom just grew from my doorstep to beyond......
Does it stop at California's border now? After all, they don't have reciprocity with Missouri, therefore my rights must stop at the edge of the bubble of California's border, right? But this seems rather odd...why is there this strange bubble when the folks on the inside of it have the same right as those on the outside? After all, Californian's have the right to carry outside, I have the right to carry outside.....why can't I carry in California when the exact same right exists on both sides of this strange little bubble?
We need to swing the hammer at reciprocity issues next. National reciprocity should be our goal based on the expansion of this "freedom limit" that has just spread from our doorsteps....and now stops at state borders.
After all, now that I, as an American, don't need a good reason to carry outside my home, how is it permissible to limit this to various states, and not others? Where's the border of this freedom?
Any input will be appreciated. Ideas on how we can expand both this idea, and our rights would be great.
"What a load of crap", or "You don't know what you're talking about" do not serve to develop my rudimentary ideas and form them into something more coherent.
Now that the 9th circuit has confirmed that we, the people don't need to provide a good reason to exercise our rights outside our home I suspect this will be headed for SCOTUS to rectify it with other Federal Court's decisions that we do, and settle the issue once and for all.
I predict that it will probably result in the demise of "may issue" entirely, as the opposite would throw a monkey wrench in the gears of everything and result in more questions rather than settling the issue. (Convince me that this fact doesn't play a role in SCOTUS' decisions. When making a decision to resolve a problem, you can't tell me that the court doesn't take simplicity into account. If someone asks you a question, don't you often answer them with a reply that will make them shut up instead of giving them something that will inevitably result in being asked 1000 more questions?)
So, if we don't need an arbitrary "good cause" to exercise our rights outside of our homes.......
How big does this circle of freedom extend?
After all, SCOTUS answered the question of 2A applicability in our home. This left the question of whether or not rights exist past the threshold of our front door in limbo.
A decision stating that I retain the right to bear arms outside my house makes me wonder:
How far outside my house?
After all, this bubble of freedom just grew from my doorstep to beyond......
Does it stop at California's border now? After all, they don't have reciprocity with Missouri, therefore my rights must stop at the edge of the bubble of California's border, right? But this seems rather odd...why is there this strange bubble when the folks on the inside of it have the same right as those on the outside? After all, Californian's have the right to carry outside, I have the right to carry outside.....why can't I carry in California when the exact same right exists on both sides of this strange little bubble?
We need to swing the hammer at reciprocity issues next. National reciprocity should be our goal based on the expansion of this "freedom limit" that has just spread from our doorsteps....and now stops at state borders.
After all, now that I, as an American, don't need a good reason to carry outside my home, how is it permissible to limit this to various states, and not others? Where's the border of this freedom?
Any input will be appreciated. Ideas on how we can expand both this idea, and our rights would be great.
Last edited: