That was absolutely the original intent. Like others, I'm surprised no one ever crafted a statute that "adjusts for inflation." But it was meant to be prohibitive plain & simple.

5th circuit rules that carrying a concealed firearm is presumptively lawful:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-30777-CR0.pdf

At the top of the decision:

The principal question presented is whether police can Terry stop a
citizen based solely on the fact that he is carrying a concealed firearm. The
answer is emphatically “no.”

I'm not smart.

How can a Terry stop justification be based on "the fact" that I am carrying a concealed firearm when you can't determine that "fact" until I am stopped and searched ??
...could have been a phone
...or a taser
...or a hunting knife
...or a collapsible baton
...or a steel dildo - who knows

My follow on question is just as quizzical to me...
Now that we have established that Terry stops based on "the fact" (or in Boxes world, the assumption) that I am carrying a firearm are not presumptively lawful, how does that impact "me the people" in as much as I don't normally carry a backpack full of whacky weed that might also get me arrest for drug possession.

My confusion is this:

I read the ruling until I could feel my eyes starting to bleed and can't figure out how this ruling impacts a law abiding citizen.
Does this inherently imply that constitutional carry is indirectly a thing now - because you cant search me if you "fact" that I have a concealed firearm?

It sounds like this is a really great ruling for the local street thugs - but how does it make the lives of "me the people" better?

The carrying of a pistol, concealed or unconcealed, has become “the new normal” in many states.

A police officer may progress from “reasonable suspicion” to “probable cause” and therefore progress from “stop and talk” to “stop and frisk” (Terry stop) only upon observing evidence that a reasonable person would believe disclosed a violation of the law.

When the simple possession of a pistol is no longer a violation of the law, it will be more difficult for a police officer to justify a “frisk” (a pat down to discover weapons), much less a search (go into pockets, backpacks, shopping bags, etc.).

All of which is an interesting exercise in 4th Amendment / 5th Amendment law, but in my opinion …

… has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the topic of this thread.

The 2nd Amendment has been raised in self-defense cases, in defense of home cases, in protection from criminals.

I WILL SPEAK BLUNTLY:

None of those have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

When John Hinkley shot President Reagen, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, there was a massive outcry that “more gun control” was needed.

And I argued with my liberal friends, who boldly proclaimed to me:

“Well, the 2nd Amendment was never designed to allow citizens to be able to shoot at the President.”

And I tactlessly replied:

“You idiot, that EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was passed. It was passed so that We The People can, should the need arise, shoot the President. And the FBI, and the Army/Navy, CIA, etc.”

Then I asked them: “At whom did George Washington assemble an Army, load weapons, and open fire.?”

They say: “The British.”

And I reply: “You need to study your history. George Washington WAS British.”
In the eyes of the law, he was a British as Lord Cornwallis. A British citizen, under the authority of the King.

No, Paul Revere et al. did not call out “The British are coming.” Paul Revere was equally British, too.”

Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Who?

The Regular Army of his Majesty, of the legitimate government.

When the colonists lowered their rifles and opened fire, who were they shooting at?

Their own government! The 18th century version of the legitimate: Army, the Navy, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the BATFE, etc.

And when the revolutionaries won their revolution, they passed a constitution.

Soon after, realizing that the only reason they were able to create The United States of America was because they had possession of weapons (including cannon, in addition to pistols and rifles). So added, as the Number Two Amendment to what is commonly called the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers made clear – in the second amendment – that the right of “the people” to have firearms is necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is intended to ensure that we, the people, the body of the citizenry armed (also known as the militia) have the ability to remove a dictator and refute tyranny. It presupposes that we -- the militia -- are persons of sound judgment and are law abiding.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and it ought to be yours.

9th circuit affirms permanent injunction against California law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto.../24/24-542.pdf

CSB - spot-effing-on.

Remember, a "Terry" stop is NOT authority to stop someone. That's circular logic. You must have a reason to interact with someone to stop them and engage. THEN, you may do pat down to ensure the lack of weapons or the like for Officer safety.

Reminds me of a story a former Operator told me when he went to work for the Air Marshals: He was presenting his creds at the entrance to the gates as he was required to and the agent wanted him to walk through the metal detector. He explained again who he was, why he was there, and showed his creds again. They still wanted him to walk through the detector.

He asked: "what is it you are looking for?"

answer: "Weapons."

He then pulls out his weapons and places them on the table and says "now what?"

They STILL had him go through the metal detector.


We were howling.

THAT is what I was hoping a smart person would tell me.

Part of my unlegal brain assumed that everything you just said was true - he other part just wondered because I don't know ALL of the laws.

I DO however - often argue with those around me - all of the same things you brought up. Taking my guns isn't just a 2nd amendment thing it is a MULTI amendment thing...
...guns aren't just for hunting, they are for shooting tyrannical power grabbers, bullies, rouge agents, etc etc

Thank you for that.

How does the law in many states, including NC, require that concealed weapons permit holders, announce upon initial contact with law enforcement that they are permit holders and that they are armed?

Isn't there a Constitutional issue here, particularly 5th Amendment?

Is it Constitutional for the prohibited person (felon) in possession of a weapon to be forced to admit the concealed carry violation to the LEO before even being questioned?

TR

So - its been quite some time since I did my CCW class - but I went again and sat with my daughter when she went through the course that a friend of mine runs.
It's neat to say "officer, have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I have my firearm with me in the car" to show that you are a law abiding citizen "playing the game"
...but why

When he runs your DL he is going to KNOW that you have CCW.

Why play the game if they will know as soon as they run your license?
Running the license of a CCW holder that was decent enough to pay the government required extortion money required to "legally" carry your own property on your person seems like a low threat...
...you've got my fucking finger prints on file
...you KNOW that I've probably got a gun on me
...as opposed to some fucking smelly thug with a dank cloud of smoke drifting from his window

It's because the government demands that law abiding citizens bend a knee.
Meanwhile lifetime criminal drug addicts are celebrated as heroes.



I dont want to sound like a hater - but lawfare is such bullshit - and those who play lawfare games are even more bullshit.

I knew I liked you for a reason!

There's a blue team too, you know . . . I was just with a bunch of them in DC and they are doing great things.

I dont doubt that - I just they were a little more visible - to the moderately uninformed (like myself) they seem to do a lot of hibernating. The undesirables certainly seem to be more active in the public eye.

It would be nice to see the good guys smack somebody across the lips every so often.

Hear! Hear! Those are the most vital historical facts that most people are either ignorant of or incapable of grasping. Then there's the group that understands it, but chooses to argue for "hunting".

Another lawsuit targeting the NFA:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1754092754

Chippin' away... Thanks for posting.