- Ambidextrous Nylon Holster for the S&W Governor
- Dual Belt Loops for Right or Left Hand Wear
- Metal Clip May Be Moved From Side to Side using Butterknife...
- Adjustable Thumb-snap retaining strap
- Model: Dual Angle Hunter
- Belt Holster
- Fits S and W Governor
- For Right Hand Use
- Tan Leather
- Vertical Carry Shoulder Holster for the S&W Governor &Public...
- Right Hand Wear -- Note, this will not fit the Original...
- Holster is Fully Lined and Includes a Belt Tie-Down Strap
- Wide, Stay Flat Shoulder Pads
- Constructed of sturdy nylon fabric and webbing.
- CUSTOM FIT: The RVH Governor Size 3 revolver holster fits...
- COMFORT & QUALITY: Upgrade to the Judge leather holster....
- CONCEALMENT & CONVENIENCE: 1791 Gunleather's RVH Judge...
- PROTECTION & CRAFTSMANSHIP: 1791 Gunleather's OWB RVH Belt...
- Converts from a hip holster to a shoulder holster
- Wear the holster in a cross draw or traditional carry
- Allows our accessories such as ammo pouches, flashlight...
- Country of Origin:United States
S&W Governor Holster
In one of the most interesting gun law cases in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether a state court should have the power to defy the wishes of a state legislature and reinstate a ban on handgun ownership by civilians. The case, Commonwealth v. Shaffer, No. 11-CR-539 (U.S. Sup. Term Court, June Term 2021), involves an appeal of a district court's ruling denying a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Shaffer to cease sales of firearms to individuals who cannot legally own them. The petition was filed after Shaffer refused to abide by a federal order that he sell all firearms to licensed dealers.
At the core of the argument before the Supreme Court is the question of whether states can ban handguns without going through what the Supreme Court called "the more comprehensive" procedure of submitting proposed regulations to the federal government for review. The lower court judge in this case ruled that Shaffer had not presented sufficient evidence that he met any of the required conditions to justify the constitutionality of his blanket ban. The three lower court judges involved in the case were not politically involved in the decision; they merely concluded that the framers of the Second Amendment intended for the federal government to be the sole authority over firearm purchases and that a federal regulation could not pass muster under that standard. In the words of one of the majority opinions at the Supreme Court, the court was unwilling to take the argument of the lower court judges to its logical conclusion and instead required that Congress determine the appropriate parameters for licensing, regulating, and prohibiting interstate firearms transactions.
The three lower court judges involved in the case argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended for the federal government to control the purchase and use of firearms within the States. Each of the judges referred to a case in which they found the government had overstepped its constitutional bounds when it became involved in licensing decisions based on firearm purchases from licensed dealers. They relied on examples such as the U.S. v. Cruce, which involved the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called District of Columbia v. Mayor Doe. In that case, the District of Columbia government was attempting to license a handgun carry permit to an individual who did not have a firearm. The mayor claimed that the District of Columbia had the right to ban all handguns in the city because of a quirk in the law that allowed people to carry concealed weapons without obtaining a license.
The three judges who decided against S&W Governor Holster interpreted the meaning of the words of the Constitution differently than the majority of judges. Specifically, the majority opinion claimed that Congress has the power to control interstate commerce even if the commerce takes place in the state in which the product is purchased. In the Fourth Amendment, the Framers placed the guarantee of the right to bear arms with various restrictions and limitations. Congress cannot, for example, regulate sales to a non-farming public, and it cannot impose a database that would keep records of all gun ownership in the United States.
After reading the majority opinion in this case, the Judge suggested that the District of Columbia was within its constitutional power to ban handguns. In reaching this conclusion, the Judge ignored the arguments of both the parties that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a handgun. Specifically, the District of Columbia argued that it could ban handguns because a person can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution, which would effectively make the use of a handgun in another person's house against that person's will a violation of the person's rights. Furthermore, District of Columbia argued that it could ban the sale of all firearms because criminals would not choose to abide by a law that banned all handguns. Essentially, the District of Columbia contended that if the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own a firearm, then the District could ban all handguns in the city.
In rejecting this argument, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to look beyond the text of the Constitution to find an interpretation of the Amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms. The panel ruled that a ban on handguns was not prohibited. The three judges who wrote the opinion recognized that they ultimately consult the Supreme Court when resolving questions of constitutionality, but decided to write their opinion for the sake of debate. Chief Judge William Rehnert wrote the opinion which relied heavily on the historical background of the Second Amendment, and then stated that "nothing our opinions recognize or warrant that the legislature may prohibit the carrying of a weapon generally recognized as lawful within the States."
The District of Columbia argued that there are reasonable limits on the carrying of guns by law-abiding citizens, which allow reasonable regulation of handgun use. According to the District, it is beyond doubt that an individual does not lose all rights to his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms just because he or she chooses to use a belt holster instead of a traditional gun holster. Further, according to the District, a law banning the carrying of all handguns without a license is a violation of the second amendment. Therefore, the District asked the Supreme Court to vacate the lower court's decision and restore the longstanding pre-emption rule for the District of Columbia.
The U.S. House of Representatives, which is controlled by a Republican majority, voted to uphold the laws in June and July. However, the U.S. Senate, controlled by a Democratic majority, is blocking legislation granting a sweeping review of firearms regulations. This means that a compromise between the parties will probably be reached this year. However, the U.S. House and Senate are considering a similar bill (H.R. 14), which could be passed as part of a compromise between the two parties, thus preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens to retain their Second Amendment right to own a firearm for self defense and personal protection.