What about "good moral character" and permits to carry?

[Aim1]

So, even though SCOTUS ruled that you cannot force someone to show proper cause to receive a permit to carry they never ruled on "good moral character" or "suitability to have a permit".


"Ten states and the District of Columbia require applicants to establish that they are “suitable persons” to carry a concealed weapon before being issued a permit. Some states call this a “good moral character” requirement."



With so many other cases such as cases pertaining to age, restrictions on sensitive locations, "good moral character", assault weapons, high capacity magazines, whether or not government can make private property automatically gun free zones, red flag laws, restraining order laws, serial numbers, ghost guns, and many more there is so many cases and so few accepted by SCOTUS.



Could SCOTUS incorporate this question into an entirely different case?



Could SCOTUS rule on say an AWB & High Capacity Magazine case and in it's ruling state something like, "Per Bruen you cannot force someone to show proper cause to need a permit nor good moral character since it is a fundamental right"?

 

[Archie]

My problem with the clause is the difficulty in incorporating such a concept in written form in law. Most of us have an idea of 'good moral character', but I'm sure it varies from person to person or sub-culture to sub-culture.
If not the entirety, perhaps some requirements might be: Membership in a specific political party, possibly non-membership in such; Membership in a specific 'religious organization' or not; Sex; Sexual orientation; Race - in my terms 'genetic background'.
What level of insanity is the boundary? Serial killer or man who likes pink socks?
I won't go on as this will turn into one of my humor columns, but it is NOT humorous.

I can see the Supreme Court as finding the requirement is too vague or blatantly biased. But the root case would have to hinge on the term.

 

[LiveLife]

So, even though SCOTUS ruled that you cannot force someone to show proper cause to receive a permit to carry they never ruled on "good moral character" or "suitability to have a permit"

Various proper cause, good moral character, suitability to have a permit, etc. all went out the window when Bruen ruling eliminated the "two step" process.

Done deal.

Even the CA Attorney General saw the clarity of Bruen ruling and issued the following "Legal Alert" following the ruling for the entire state - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

... US Supreme Court ... concluded that the State of NY’s requirement that “proper cause” be demonstrated in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

... Bruen majority specifically identifies California as one of six States that has an analogue to New York’s “proper cause” standard ... Accordingly ... California’s “good cause” standard ... in most public places ... unconstitutional.

Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of “good cause” in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.​

Could SCOTUS incorporate this question into an entirely different case?

Keep in mind Heller ruling was about RKBA for home unattached to the militia and Bruen ruling was about RKBA outside of home while eliminating the "two step" process to require courts to now only use "text and history" approach.

My guess for the logical continuation of "Originalist" ruling for 2A is the expansion of "modern types" of arms to be protected under the 2A like "modern forms" of free speech like text/email in the form of magazine fed semi-auto firearms, disability enhancement devices such as pistol brace/bump stock/binary trigger, hearing protection devices such as suppressors, technological advanced manufacturing such as 3D printing/80% frames, etc. starting with AW/magazine ban knocking on SCOTUS' door.

 

[Aim1]

Various proper cause, good moral character, suitability to have a permit, etc. all went out the window when Bruen ruling eliminated the "two step" process.

Done deal.

Even the CA Attorney General saw the clarity of Bruen ruling and issued the following "Legal Alert" following the ruling for the entire state - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

... US Supreme Court ... concluded that the State of NY’s requirement that “proper cause” be demonstrated in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

... Bruen majority specifically identifies California as one of six States that has an analogue to New York’s “proper cause” standard ... Accordingly ... California’s “good cause” standard ... in most public places ... unconstitutional.

Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of “good cause” in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.​

Keep in mind Heller ruling was about RKBA for home unattached to the militia and Bruen ruling was about RKBA outside of home while eliminating the "two step" process to require courts to now only use "text and history" approach.

My guess for the logical continuation of "Originalist" ruling for 2A is the expansion of "modern types" of arms to be protected under the 2A like "modern forms" of free speech like text/email in the form of magazine fed semi-auto firearms, disability enhancement devices such as pistol brace/bump stock/binary trigger, hearing protection devices such as suppressors, technological advanced manufacturing such as 3D printing/80% frames, etc. starting with AW/magazine ban knocking on SCOTUS' door.

So why haven't those 10 states got ridden of those requirements yet?



Will it take a full SCOTUS case pertaining to good moral character to overturn it?

 

[LiveLife]

So why haven't those 10 states got ridden of those requirements yet?

From CA Attorney General to state's various law enforcement agencies - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of “good cause” in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.

... Although California law was not directly at issue in the Bruen decision, the decision makes clear that “good cause” requirements such as those in California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(2) and 26155(a)(2) are inconsistent with the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, state and local officials must comply with clearly established federal law.

In accordance with Bruen, the Attorney General now considers the “good cause” requirements set forth in California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(2) and 26155(a)(2) to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

... effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license ...

​

 

[AlexanderA]

Could SCOTUS rule on say an AWB & High Capacity Magazine case and in it's ruling state something like, "Per Bruen you cannot force someone to show proper cause to need a permit nor good moral character since it is a fundamental right"?

That would be a classic example of non-binding obiter dictum when the Court comments on an issue not before it in the case. A careful judge would avoid doing such a thing.

 

[Boom Vang]

So why haven't those 10 states got ridden of those requirements yet?

Because they don't want citizens to carry guns, and will not change those unconstitutional requirements until a court specifically orders them to.

And lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming, and the judges in those states are basically all anti-gun liberals.

That is the reality.

 

[CapnMac]

Because they don't want citizens to carry guns, and will not change those unconstitutional requirements until a court specifically orders them to.

^^^^Precisely.

The Power to determine good character is a Power the power-hungry are unlikely to cede without duress.

 

[Speedo66]

I think the general idea was to make “good character” clauses as vague as possible so they could be used to deny rights as needed.

Since in many counties the sherif had total control as to who was issued a permit, relatives and friends were assured permits, others who he or she considered undesirable, not so much. No doubt race, religion, or country of origin entered into the mix.

 

[Fatcat3]

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..." Justus Potter Stewart.
Not that we should give up or surrender, but good character" clause or no the anti-gunners will twist turn modify just enough, and when all else fails just ignore the law, constitution, and or SCOTUS, until a decision goes their way then it's "settled law."

 

[General Geoff]

PA has a watered down good character clause that effectively means they can deny you a carry license if you have a known history of drunkenness or dangerous public behavior. The enforcement of said clause is up to whatever county sheriff's office issues the license or Philadelphia PD. PPD is notoriously strict and overzealous in enforcing it, to the surprise of absolutely no one.

 

[230RN]

^^^^Precisely.

The Power to determine good character is a Power the power-hungry are unlikely to cede without duress.

All the pussyfootin' around at SCOTUS is due to the weak-minded conservative reprobates on the Court being browbeaten by the fine upstanding intelligent liberals of high moral standing and good character.

Both sides fail to recognize that the United States Constitution with its Bill Of Rights is the new carefully-considered "Common Law" and should be treated as such.

Terry, 230RN

 

[LiveLife]

People of THR ... Hey now ...

Our founders framed the government with separation of powers into three branches with the Supreme Court of the judicial branch having the ultimate final say on what is constitutional.

That's it.

Now, "We the People" control who gets appointed to the Supreme Court to make that determination and had Hillary won in 2016, we would have very different ruling for Bruen and the "antis" would make sure the legislative and executive branches "complied" with the ruling.

But "We the People" did not put Hillary in the White House by popular vote which would have been majority mob rule to impose on the rights of the minority rural states. No sir, just as the founders framed, "We the People" through Electoral College that gave smaller rural states greater voice, hundreds of judges were appointed to federal courts and three "Originalist" justices were appointed to the Supreme Court as recommended by the Federalist Society.

As justice Gorsuch eloquently put it, "We the People" made an agreement and "Originalist" justices will honor that agreement. Yes, "We the People" can govern ourselves.

So just as "We the People" appointed justices to uphold the modern forms of free speech/communication like email/text to be protected under the First Amendment, "We the People" appointed "Originalist" justices will uphold modern types of arms like magazine fed semi-auto 3D printed firearms with enhanced sound suppression, trigger and recoil management system that will allow even those with disability/age related issues to protect themselves at home unrelated to the militia (Heller) and outside of home (Bruen) using modern arms (Caetano); and soon modern sporting rifle (Miller/Bianchi/etc.) and modern ammunition storage device (Duncan, etc.).

That's about it.

Will there be moan and groan like the permanent enforcement for the First Amendment?

Sure.

But in the end, since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", permanent enforcement will happen ... in time.

I have a feeling we see such rulings and enforcement happen during our lifetime.

Long live the Republic.

 

[Jim Watson]

The mayor I made a big campaign contribution to says I have good character. But you supported the other guy, so you don't.

I am pessimistic, I think the Left Liberals in office and their permanent staffs of lawyers and other flunkies can screw us faster than we can pay our lawyers to get us out.

 

[LiveLife]

I am pessimistic, I think the Left Liberals in office and their permanent staffs of lawyers and other flunkies can screw us faster than we can pay our lawyers to get us out.

At least we have "representation" when we are taxed and have our rights imposed by the "government".

I recall there was some very upset people when they were taxed without representation about 240 years ago.

"We the People" ... rule, via the Supreme Court ... Long live the Republic.

 

[LiveLife]

had Hillary won in 2016, we would have very different ruling for Bruen and the "antis" would make sure the legislative and executive branches "complied" with the ruling

And "We the People" spoke in 2016 and three "Originalist" justices were appointed to convey the VOICE of "We the People" along with other "Originalist" justices whose voices were silenced for decades (But according to the antis, that's only fair, right?).

And as just the same had mob majority won in 2016 to appoint justices (Folks, apparently destiny happened ), "We the People" framed by the founders have every reason to make sure the legislative and executive branches NOW "comply" with the "highest court of the land" rulings.

That's how cookie crumbled ... so sorry, antis.

Now, COMPLY to "Second Amendment is not a second class right" declaration of justice Thomas.

Oh, the antis are upset with justice Thomas?

I am sure they are ... Like how when the King of England lost the American Revolutionary War?

 

[AlexanderA]

Our founders framed the government with separation of powers into three branches with the Supreme Court of the judicial branch having the ultimate final say on what is constitutional.

Actually, the Constitution as adopted did not envisage the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review (deciding what was constitutional and what was not). That power was an innovation by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall was very clever in that the result of the case favored the Jefferson administration, which therefore could not very well object to it.

 

[LiveLife]

Constitution as adopted ... That power was an innovation by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall was very clever in that the result of the case favored the Jefferson administration, which therefore could not very well object to it.

So just as justice Gorsuch stated, "We the People" demonstrated we can modernize and update the Constitution/BOR to "govern ourselves".

Like how when "We the People" stopped slavery and allowed women to vote.

Long live the Republic.

 

[JTHunter]

There was a news story early this afternoon that some leftist congress-critter was introducing legislation to expand the SC thereby shifting the balance of power.

 

[Space Ghost]

Personally, I love the idea of "good moral character"... however, you're gonna have to rely on somebody else to determine if you fit that category or not...
What if they know you don't believe in the same stupid same crap they do?
What if you live in a liberal run ****hole... that was ruined by their stupid policies, and that's why you need the carry permit?
What if they think you don't deserve one because you're a white Christian male, and therefore probably a racist who also hates the LGBT community?
No thanks. Kinda glad they never ruled on it.
Everybody gets to pack heat. That way the playing field is even.
Once you abuse the right, THEN you lose it. (providing you survive your stupidity)

 

[Mk VII]

The traditional judge's answer would be "This is a court of law, not a court of morals".

 

[WestKentucky]

Laws are more or less guideline for morality. If you break the law and are found guilty of it, then you have a criminal record. Simple misdeeds. (Misdemeanors) or significant criminal action (felonies) are already labeled as such by criminal code. It is unlawful to possess a firearm after conviction of any felony or a select few misdemeanors. I think the law pretty clearly says “don’t do these things or we take your gun rights) which translates well into “if you do these things you can’t get a concealed gun/weapon carry permit. It’s redundant.