DC ban on gun carry overturned!

[Bill of Rights]

Yes. As rockhopper noted. However, as rockhopper also noted, Chicago hasn't only been 'dragging their feet', Emanual and his cronies have been looking for EVERY possible way NOT to issue licenses. The Palmer decision addresses this specific issue.

Further, the Illinois / Chicago baloney does NOT recognize reciprocity with, say Indiana. With non-residents, and makes no actual provision for a non-resident to carry in Illinois. The Palmer decision addresses this issue, as well.

Even further, Palmer addresses the issue of constitutional carry. Which would mean, if this were likewise applied to Illinois / Chicago, not only would lawful non-residents be able to carry in Illinois / Chicago, those non-residents wouldn't even need 'reciprocity' because they wouldn't even need a license from their home State.

So, the issue has now been addressed with the 'worst' anti-gun community, D.C. The next logical step would be to address what was the '2nd worst', but now would move up to 'the worst': Chicago.

This could also preemptively 'force' States that do not currently have reciprocity with Indiana (like Ohio) to provide reciprocity, instead of refusing reciprocity, or forcing an Indiana resident to obtain a non-resident license from somewhere like Utah or Florida.

Even further, the Palmer decision provides a framework for constitutional carry in those areas (the majority of States) that do not recognize constitutional carry.

Lastly, it should ALSO be noted that Palmer further identifies that the RKBA is not 'unlimited', something which even some INGO members falsely claim. Therefore, convicted felons, mentally deranged, and so forth can be (and should be) prohibited from carrying.

So, at least the implications of the Palmer decision are quite huge. And helps provide groundwork to address further issues (as Palmer did citing Heller and McDonald).

You were doing great up to this point. However...

Now, just push to get businesses identified as 'places of public access', and that would eliminate the silly 'can't carry in our store' signs. A business that invites the public into it's store should NOT be allowed to preempt the right of the patron to lawfully carry. If a business invites the public to patronize that business then, while not a 'public place' (like a park), it IS a 'place of public access' by their own choice (inviting in the public), and should be subject to the same requirements (allowing carry) as parks (etc.) must.

No matter how many times you say it, no matter how cool it would be to not be able to be stopped anywhere you chose to carry... Your RKBA does not trump property rights... You still go to those "places of public access" by your own choice.... or not. You do have a right to carry. You do not have a right to be on anyone's property in opposition to their wishes. You may swing your fist all you like, until it impacts another's nosetip by your action (that is, if they see it and move in front of it with the intent of being struck, you've not necessarily committed the violation.)

Each step forward, though maybe small, is a step forward.

Just wanted to clarify the statement. Thanks!

My question: IN recognizes all governmentally issued permission slips. How does/will this bear upon our law requiring a foreign slip of that nature prior to carry not being disallowed?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now we know why this summer's been so cool...hell is freezing over.

 

[MisterChester]

Now we know why this summer's been so cool...hell is freezing over.

Hell didn't freeze over... It entered an ice age. This really came out of nowhere. Some of the best news we have heard in a while.

 

[MikeDVB]

I didn't even know this was in the court system...

 

[Jack Burton]

So, at least the implications of the Palmer decision are quite huge. And helps provide groundwork to address further issues (as Palmer did citing Heller and McDonald).

Palmer also extensively cited Peruta out of the 9th District from earlier this year. This was the case that basically gave shall issue to California which is now tired up in appeals. Not only does this strengthen Pertuta in the eyes of other judges, but makes it much more likely that the SCOTUS will lean its way when ruling on the conflict between the circuits which have demanded shall issue and those that denied shall issue.

 

[sgtonory]

As if i need anyone to tell me when or where i can defend myself.

 

[cbhausen]

STUPENDOUSLY GOOD NEWS! This makes far more than my weekend. I might have to finally visit DC after 50 years on planet earth.

 

[buckstopshere]

I wonder if Kokesh will do that OC March on DC now.

Happy day!

 

[cbhausen]

Can Oblamer pull some executive order crap to counter this?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I was just getting ready to go to bed when I decided to check one last time online if anything was new!

Boy am I GLAD I DID!!!

Now I am celebrating with a great single malt scotch and going to bed happy happy happy!!!

Let freedom ring!

Sincerely,

Doug

 

[Thor]

Now if we can just get TSA to let us travel with our weapons...then I could fly into DC without that vague feeling like I'm walking into a bar fight with my hands full. For the past several years I've been traveling with a ballistic clipboard just in case I can't get out of the rental car lot unscathed.

I'm sure Rep Walorski will be happy to hear this. She carries here in IN but has been denied the right to self defense while representing the 2nd Dist. in DC.

 

[cobber]

Can Oblamer pull some executive order crap to counter this?

What's to stop him, besides the Constitution?

 

[CathyInBlue]

I'm sure Rep Walorski will be happy to hear this. She carries here in IN but has been denied the right to self defense while representing the 2nd Dist. in DC.

How long before you suppose it'd be before we see Congresscritters packing heat on the House and Senate floors? That'd make my century.

 

[Hardscrable]

Let's just hope and pray that the Supreme Court balance does not shift further left until this case ultimately lands in their lap.

 

[MisterChester]

Let's just hope and pray that the Supreme Court balance does not shift further left until this case ultimately lands in their lap.

Further left? They've handed down a lot of conservative rulings in the past 10 years or so, only exception being Obamacare.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Yay!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Further left? They've handed down a lot of conservative rulings in the past 10 years or so, only exception being Obamacare.

While there may have been a trend here, I am not nearly so concerned about conservative rulings per se as the importance of having justices who understand that their duty is to see that the law and its applications conforms to the Constitution, as opposed to being ideologues who see the Constitution as an obstacle to circumvent in order to impose their own ideas of right and proper. So far, I see far too little of that including from the supposedly conservative justices. We still haven't recovered the balance destroyed when Franklin Roosevelt was allowed to pack the court.

 

[KG1]

We're on the right track here. We need more rulings in such a manner to soundly affirm that the RTKBA is not solely limited to the boundaries of ones own home or property.

 

[Hardscrable]

While there may have been a trend here, I am not nearly so concerned about conservative rulings per se as the importance of having justices who understand that their duty is to see that the law and its applications conforms to the Constitution, as opposed to being ideologues who see the Constitution as an obstacle to circumvent in order to impose their own ideas of right and proper. So far, I see far too little of that including from the supposedly conservative justices. We still haven't recovered the balance destroyed when Franklin Roosevelt was allowed to pack the court.

Agreed. I think the conservative reference is because in general pro gun/SA is consider conservative and anti is considered liberal. Rep vs. Dem and cons vs lib are the discussion/conversation way too often when the consideration should be constitutional vs not constitutional.

 

[mrjarrell]

Agreed. I think the conservative reference is because in general pro gun/SA is consider conservative and anti is considered liberal. Rep vs. Dem and cons vs lib are the discussion/conversation way too often when the consideration should be constitutional vs not constitutional.

This is where we run into problems. Strict interpretation of the Constitution, especially for lovers of the 10th Amendment, allows for gun bans at the state level. It's has only been recently that courts have started to use incorporation to overturn these, often through citation of the 14th Amendment, (which lots of people hate). The Constitution, as originally written and interpreted had no problems with gun bans or carry bans.