View Full Version : 9th Circuit strikes down California restrictive rules on licensed carry of handguns.
Eurodriver
02-13-14, 14:39
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
they just t'ed this one up for the supreme court to finally issue a decision. Thats a scary thought if you read the dissents form the other 5-4 decisions
I'm surprised the 9th ruled this way!
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Peruta v San Diego (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf)
Effects people in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
you never know what those people are going to do, I am very glad I will practicing in Texas...
platoonDaddy
02-13-14, 16:06
GREAT friggin news! Dang, the 9th circuit, that is unbelievable.
Hopefully will have a direct impact on Maryland!
Never thought I would say this "way to go 9th!"
Moose-Knuckle
02-13-14, 16:28
So has Hell frozen over . . .
GREAT friggin news! Dang, the 9th circuit, that is unbelievable.
Hopefully will have a direct impact on Maryland!
Never thought I would say this "way to go 9th!"
It most certainly will. Same with DC, NY and other states (are their others?) that have CCW permits but make it nearly impossible for normal citizens get one.
I'm surprised the 9th ruled this way!
This! The 9th has made a career of being overruled due to ignorance!
platoonDaddy
02-13-14, 17:26
It most certainly will. Same with DC, NY and other states (are their others?) that have CCW permits but make it nearly impossible for normal citizens get one.
Just heard some disturbing news from a legal-eagle: oldMan Woollard is binding precedent in the 4th Circuit, so therefore we (MD) are stuck with the 4th Circuit's view of the 2A. Our only out is the Supreme Court.
The 9th's ruling has no direct impact on other circuits. They can use the 9th's ruling as persuasive evidence if they're taking up the issue for the first time, but otherwise their prior rulings hold.
The only reason this is actually important is because now there's a split in the law between different circuits, which almost forces scotus to take notice and hear a case on the issue to make one ruling across America.
I don't know what they'll decide, but for now I'm glad as I often travel between Hawaii, California, and Nevada.
The only reason this is actually important is because now there's a split in the law between different circuits, which almost forces scotus to take notice and hear a case on the issue to make one ruling across America.
Indeed. That is what I was driving at.
While it will be a 5-4 split just like Heller "we" will win on this one. Add to this already existing reciprocity, and we may very well end up with national CCW.
Indeed. That is what I was driving at.
While it will be a 5-4 split just like Heller "we" will win on this one. Add to this already existing reciprocity, and we may very well end up with national CCW.
IMHO what will lead to national CCW is, ironically, gay marriage. Once it is forced onto other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (a valid "license" in one state must be honored by others) then as long as our side has the balls to pursue it that recognition must be extended to carry permits also. You cannot have it both ways, although I'm sure the libtards will find some excuse as to how one is okay but the other isn't.
IMHO what will lead to national CCW is, ironically, gay marriage.
How is that ironic?
It most certainly will. Same with DC, NY and other states (are their others?) that have CCW permits but make it nearly impossible for normal citizens get one.
Nj is a "May Issue" state as well, and has a case pending similar to that of the one coming from MD.
BoringGuy45
02-13-14, 20:33
IMHO what will lead to national CCW is, ironically, gay marriage.
How is that ironic?
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking what he means is that gay marriage, an issue a lot of conservatives are vehemently against may, in a weird twist of fate, end up pushing through an issue that conservatives are strongly in favor of.
And I say fine. I'm not gay, none of my friends or close family members (as far as I know) are gay, and frankly I find it gross. But that's my issue, and no one else's. And if issuing gay couples marriage licenses in every state is what it takes for me to be able to drive from state to state with my gun on my hip without worrying about getting arrested; if it means "May issue" is a thing of the past, then I say hey, hand out all the marriage licenses they want!
platoonDaddy
02-13-14, 20:33
Nj is a "May Issue" state as well, and has a case pending similar to that of the one coming from MD.
SAF Challenge to NJ http://saf.org/?p=3013
On February 12, 2014, a 19 states, 34 members of congress and a number of other groups filed amicus briefs supporting SAF’s petition at the Supreme Court.
Moose-Knuckle
02-13-14, 21:54
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking what he means is that gay marriage, an issue a lot of conservatives are vehemently against may, in a weird twist of fate, end up pushing through an issue that conservatives are strongly in favor of.
And I say fine. I'm not gay, none of my friends or close family members (as far as I know) are gay, and frankly I find it gross. But that's my issue, and no one else's. And if issuing gay couples marriage licenses in every state is what it takes for me to be able to drive from state to state with my gun on my hip without worrying about getting arrested; if it means "May issue" is a thing of the past, then I say hey, hand out all the marriage licenses they want!
Bingo.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." - Neo-Marxist Saul Alinksy
I never, EVER, in my wildest dreams thought this would happen. As a resident of CA, I am elated. I do, however, fully expect the case to be appealed, and thus the ruling to be put on hold for the time being.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking what he means is that gay marriage, an issue a lot of conservatives are vehemently against may, in a weird twist of fate, end up pushing through an issue that conservatives are strongly in favor of.
Bingo! Spot on. That is the "irony" of it indeed.
I never, EVER, in my wildest dreams thought this would happen. As a resident of CA, I am elated. I do, however, fully expect the case to be appealed, and thus the ruling to be put on hold for the time being.
Who exactly has the authority to put something like this on hold? Seriously, I'm curious. So far the highest court it's gotten to is the 9th Circuit, and as such (at least for now until/unless it gets to the Supremes) their decision should take effect immediately.
SeriousStudent
02-13-14, 22:47
So has Hell frozen over . . .
Not only that, but they used the ice to set up a stand selling cold lemonade.
I never, ever thought I'd see this decision from that court, as others have said. I hope it survives the inevitable wailing and lamentations from the opponents.
Not only that, but they used the ice to set up a stand selling cold lemonade.
I never, ever thought I'd see this decision from that court, as others have said. I hope it survives the inevitable wailing and lamentations from the opponents.
I'm thinking that they can wail and lament all they want but it doesn't overturn judicial decisions.....yet anyway.
So I just skimmed the opinion (while in bed on my phone and also on painkillers and allergy medicine while my cat nibbled on my fingers).
The ruling did not deem restrictions on concealed carry unconstitutional. It did not say unilaterally that "may issue" is unconstitutional. It DID say that may issue, combined with a ban on open carry, is unconstitutional.
The way the opinion played out, the majority first established that there is not only a right to keep arms, but to bear them, and defined what "bear" meant... Which as we all know, doesn't mean to just transport it, but to bring it for the purpose of using it (in defense).
After they were satisfied with a constitutional requirement that the individual (from Heller) has the right to have a firearm in public, they examined SD's CC laws and the State's OC laws. Because SD requires exceptional circumstance to obtain a CC permit, by definition a normal person cannot obtain one. And since the constitution protects normal people, the combination of all those laws is unconstitutional.
So under this decision, a state under the 9th can either allow open carry and flat out ban concealed carry, or ban open carry and utilize "shall issue"-style wording in their concealed carry laws.
This also doesn't change restrictions on carry of any sort in schools, federal installations, etc.
IMHO what will lead to national CCW is, ironically, gay marriage. Once it is forced onto other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (a valid "license" in one state must be honored by others) then as long as our side has the balls to pursue it that recognition must be extended to carry permits also. You cannot have it both ways, although I'm sure the libtards will find some excuse as to how one is okay but the other isn't.
You're stretching. It would seem that a lot more similar precedent was already set with driver's licenses. Seems nothing was 'forced' with CCW permits as a result.
You're stretching. It would seem that a lot more similar precedent was already set with driver's licenses. Seems nothing was 'forced' with CCW permits as a result.
I did add the caveat that our side needed to have some balls and force the issue. Driver's licenses is a long gone issue......gay marriage is our current chance to seize the moment.
I did add the caveat that our side needed to have some balls and force the issue. Driver's licenses is a long gone issue......gay marriage is our current chance to seize the moment.
We don't need national reciprocity for state issued DL's what we need is to be more proactive than reactive as a group.
We don't need national reciprocity for state issued DL's what we need is to be more proactive than reactive as a group.
What's your point? Don't push the CCW issue if gay marriage is forced down the throats of those who don't care for it? Might as well benefit from it.
What's your point? Don't push the CCW issue if gay marriage is forced down the throats of those who don't care for it? Might as well benefit from it.
You're getting forced into a gay marriage?
You're getting forced into a gay marriage?
Yeah, something like that. :secret:
Eurodriver
02-14-14, 07:26
Let the gays be gay, guys. Gays have always been gay and whether they're married or not won't change them being gay. They will just be gay and married. The Republican Party needs to stop being gay about the gays.
Let the gays be gay, guys. Gays have always been gay and whether they're married or not won't change them being gay. They will just be gay and married. The Republican Party needs to stop being gay about the gays.
Ironically, not being gay about the gays to let the gays be gay will often end like most marriages, with neither side very gay anymore.
Eurodriver
02-14-14, 08:17
Ironically, not being gay about the gays to let the gays be gay will often end like most marriages, with neither side very gay anymore.
What you did there - I see it.
I never, EVER, in my wildest dreams thought this would happen. As a resident of CA, I am elated. I do, however, fully expect the case to be appealed, and thus the ruling to be put on hold for the time being.
Who exactly has the authority to put something like this on hold? Seriously, I'm curious. So far the highest court it's gotten to is the 9th Circuit, and as such (at least for now until/unless it gets to the Supremes) their decision should take effect immediately.
Because of the 2-1 ruling, San Diego & CA DOJ has requested an en banc (11 judge) decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
So, a stay was granted until the en banc makes a ruling.
So I just skimmed the opinion (while in bed on my phone and also on painkillers and allergy medicine while my cat nibbled on my fingers).
The ruling did not deem restrictions on concealed carry unconstitutional. It did not say unilaterally that "may issue" is unconstitutional. It DID say that may issue, combined with a ban on open carry, is unconstitutional.
The way the opinion played out, the majority first established that there is not only a right to keep arms, but to bear them, and defined what "bear" meant... Which as we all know, doesn't mean to just transport it, but to bring it for the purpose of using it (in defense).
After they were satisfied with a constitutional requirement that the individual (from Heller) has the right to have a firearm in public, they examined SD's CC laws and the State's OC laws. Because SD requires exceptional circumstance to obtain a CC permit, by definition a normal person cannot obtain one. And since the constitution protects normal people, the combination of all those laws is unconstitutional.
So under this decision, a state under the 9th can either allow open carry and flat out ban concealed carry, or ban open carry and utilize "shall issue"-style wording in their concealed carry laws.
This also doesn't change restrictions on carry of any sort in schools, federal installations, etc.
The San Diego "law" is CA state law.
CA state law requires a "good cause" for issuance. [PC 26150(a)(2)]
What was at issue is what San Diego considered a "good cause" for issuance.
San Diego County Sheriff policy = personal protection is not a "good cause" for issuance.
Several CA County Sheriffs have the same policy.
So, basically what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was personal protection is a good cause for issuance.
Currently, CA LTC permit holders are exempt from the GFSZ laws (they can legally carry on school/college property).
CA Penal Code 26150
(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.
(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
So what next then? They have to go through an appeal process before anything else happens, which will probably take months?
The San Diego "law" is CA state law.
CA state law requires a "good cause" for issuance. [PC 26150(a)(2)]
What was at issue is what San Diego considered a "good cause" for issuance.
San Diego County Sheriff policy = personal protection is not a "good cause" for issuance.
Several CA County Sheriffs have the same policy.
So, basically what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was personal protection is a good cause for issuance.
Currently, CA LTC permit holders are exempt from the GFSZ laws (they can legally carry on school/college property).
CA Penal Code 26150
(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant's principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.
(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.
(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:
(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
That's basically what I wrote :p
What's your point? Don't push the CCW issue if gay marriage is forced down the throats of those who don't care for it? Might as well benefit from it.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about CCW but I can see now that I was mistaken. If you're SO caught up in homosexuality I'll step aside so you can talk gay until you've had your fill. I've got less important things to discuss than gay marriage so I'll just wait for that thread to come along so I can discuss my less important topics.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about CCW but I can see now that I was mistaken. If you're SO caught up in homosexuality I'll step aside so you can talk gay until you've had your fill. I've got less important things to discuss than gay marriage so I'll just wait for that thread to come along so I can discuss my less important topics.
In case your reading skills need brushed up on let me spell it out for you: I was replying to someone who mentioned national CCW reciprocity. Then I suggested what might be the vehicle to achieve that. Better? If not, TFB.
In case your reading skills need brushed up on let me spell it out for you: I was replying to someone who mentioned national CCW reciprocity. Then I suggested what might be the vehicle to achieve that. Better? If not, TFB.
Sure bud.
Effects people in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Gonna have to ask, how does this impact WA state? Never had to show cause in getting my permit, and open carry is legal here (facilitating the ability to completely ban concealment if they felt like pursuing it). WA is stupid about many things, but CCW hasn't been one of them.
SeriousStudent
02-14-14, 21:10
Let's ease off on the tempers, shall we gents?
Gonna have to ask, how does this impact WA state? Never had to show cause in getting my permit, and open carry is legal here (facilitating the ability to completely ban concealment if they felt like pursuing it). WA is stupid about many things, but CCW hasn't been one of them.
It only "effects" Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho because they fall within the jurisdiction of this circuit, so any future law makers should be mindful of this ruling or else waste everyone's time.
It really makes a difference for Hawaii and California though.
Eurodriver
02-15-14, 05:33
It only "effects" Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho because they fall within the jurisdiction of this circuit, so any future law makers should be mindful of this ruling or else waste everyone's time.
It really makes a difference for Hawaii and California though.
Yeah it does, but what difference does it make carrying a gun if using it means you spend the night in jail (minimum)? You saved your life, but now you're on probation with a record and the police tear up your car every time you get stopped for not using a blinker. Shitty deal.
When I was living in Hawaii I read a report of a guy who had a home invasion (which, to be fair, is almost non existent in Hawaii) and shot at one of the perps. They ran away but police figured out his round travelled toward (but not over) a street and he got charged and convicted with reckless endangering.
Edit: Can't find the specific story, but...
RECKLESS ENDANGERING
Discharging a firearm toward a populated area or on or toward a street or road is reckless endangering. This can apply to private ranges, plinking, negligent discharges, and self-defense use.
http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/hawaii-gun-laws
Yeah it does, but what difference does it make carrying a gun if using it means you spend the night in jail (minimum)? You saved your life, but now you're on probation with a record and the police tear up your car every time you get stopped for not using a blinker. Shitty deal.
When I was living in Hawaii I read a report of a guy who had a home invasion (which, to be fair, is almost non existent in Hawaii) and shot at one of the perps. They ran away but police figured out his round travelled toward (but not over) a street and he got charged and convicted with reckless endangering.
Edit: Can't find the specific story, but...
http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/hawaii-gun-laws
Spending a night in jail in exchange for your life? Best deal ever...
WHAT IF: The liberal 9th did this in order to PUSH it to SCOTUS because they think SOCTUS is now liberal enough to overturn Heller and start siding liberal?
WHAT IF: The liberal 9th did this in order to PUSH it to SCOTUS because they think SOCTUS is now liberal enough to overturn Heller and start siding liberal?
That wouldn't make sense.
Tactically, if scotus again denied certiorari, the 9th would be stuck with this law. And if scotus ruled against them, it would be worse. Basically, too many risks for almost no reward within the 9th.
Further, there's already a split in the circuits on this issue.
Essentially, if their goal was to contribute to the gun control side, it makes the most sense directly vote that way.
Supreme Court Justices don't overturn their own precedent without very very good cause. It almost never happens. In this case, I think the only way Heller will be rendered void is via Constitutional Amendment.
brushy bill
02-15-14, 19:12
WHAT IF: The liberal 9th did this in order to PUSH it to SCOTUS because they think SOCTUS is now liberal enough to overturn Heller and start siding liberal?
This is the only thing I could come up with, but there is considerable risk as illustrated in the post immediately below yours.
Just a few things here.
1. This was a short court ruling and will now go to the full 9th Circuit.
2. For those that don't get the "gay marriage" connection, it's real simple. Discrimination is illegal based on a variety of factors. Denying gay people the right to marriage violates the Constitution (whether or not you agree with it). As one of my CA friends explained it. The 9th Circuit is a more constitutional based court as opposed to a customary and traditions type of court. The connect here is that the laws in CA have resulted in a virtual disarmament of the people and they systematically have taken away the rights of the people. So this court that upheld the right of gay marriage has now issued this ruling.
3. CA can probably circumvent this in a way without conceding total defeat. Had they not been so rabid about the open carry stuff, this probably wouldn't have happened. If this thing goes past the full court and goes to the SCOTUS who knows how it will play out.
platoonDaddy
02-16-14, 07:33
Just a few things here.
1. This was a short court ruling and will now go to the full 9th Circuit.
The way I read the following, it was the 9th Circuit:
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have "good cause," which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O'Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the "good cause" provision violates the Second Amendment.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/2/kopel-ninth-circuit-strikes-california%E2%80%99s-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns.aspx
EDIT: upon further research if San Diego ask for a en banc review and one was granted it would be heard before all the judges of the 9th Circuit vs the panel selected (three judges).
I guess my slang confused the issue. The 3 judge panel is made up of judges from the 9th Circuit. Should it go to appeal all of the judges (full court) would then be involved.
The way I read the following, it was the 9th Circuit:
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have "good cause," which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O'Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the "good cause" provision violates the Second Amendment.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/2/kopel-ninth-circuit-strikes-california%E2%80%99s-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns.aspx
EDIT: upon further research if San Diego ask for a en banc review and one was granted it would be heard before all the judges of the 9th Circuit vs the panel selected (three judges).
2. For those that don't get the "gay marriage" connection, it's real simple. Discrimination is illegal based on a variety of factors. Denying gay people the right to marriage violates the Constitution (whether or not you agree with it). As one of my CA friends explained it. The 9th Circuit is a more constitutional based court as opposed to a customary and traditions type of court. The connect here is that the laws in CA have resulted in a virtual disarmament of the people and they systematically have taken away the rights of the people. So this court that upheld the right of gay marriage has now issued this ruling.
From the Libertarian Party...
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1/1656381_10152215114482726_1115115391_n.jpg
From the Libertarian Party...
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1/1656381_10152215114482726_1115115391_n.jpg
That's one heck of a ploy to equalize gay marriage to the enumerated 2nd Amendment....
That's one heck of a ploy to equalize gay marriage to the enumerated 2nd Amendment....
Actually, it's a step in the right direction for 'Freedom for all' and not the typical hypocritical stance on freedom for me but not for you that most Republicans take. You wanna know why (R) is losing so much ground? That pretty much is a microcosm of why right there.
That's one heck of a ploy to equalize gay marriage to the enumerated 2nd Amendment....
All this anti gay stuff on this board is starting to get under my skin. I'm not sure why people who are concerned about *their* (second amendment) rights being violated seem to figure it's fine to infringe on other's.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As we are fond of pointing out, "what part of _shall not be infringed_" do you not understand?!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What part of "_all men_ [...] are endowed by unalienable rights" do you not understand?
Should we start picking and choosing? Free speech for Catholics, but not Buddhists? Right to vote for African Americans, but not Hispanic Americans? Maybe people without a degree shouldn't speak? Or women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
The reality is, gays have been denied their civil rights. This isn't some special new right. It's restoring a right that was denied to them.
Beyond the fact that no one's civil liberties should be infringed, I don't even understand the animosity. Do you get upset that Hispanic Americans have the right to vote? Or resent that women can exercise free speech? I bet you don't.
Do you worry about what your heterosexual neighbors of a different religion do in their bedroom?
Do you think Buddhists are destroying our way of life?
Our rights are for everyone. Every one of us should be upset if anyone's civil liberties are infringed upon be it free speech, the right to gather, the right to vote, the right to defend themselves.
You should be pissed off about the infringement, not the other way around. You'd sure as hell be pissed off if *you* weren't allowed to marry because you were of the "wrong" religion, or race, or sex.
And before someone starts bitching about whether marriage is a right, re-read the pre-amble to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Then tell me with a straight face why we should start deciding who should be allowed to pursue *their* happiness.
-john
Homo wedding cake is just a distraction to keep idiots' eyes off the ball, and a tool of division for the Left.
All this anti gay stuff on this board is starting to get under my skin. I'm not sure why people who are concerned about *their* (second amendment) rights being violated seem to figure it's fine to infringe on other's.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As we are fond of pointing out, "what part of _shall not be infringed_" do you not understand?!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What part of "_all men_ [...] are endowed by unalienable rights" do you not understand?
Should we start picking and choosing? Free speech for Catholics, but not Buddhists? Right to vote for African Americans, but not Hispanic Americans? Maybe people without a degree shouldn't speak? Or women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
The reality is, gays have been denied their civil rights. This isn't some special new right. It's restoring a right that was denied to them.
Beyond the fact that no one's civil liberties should be infringed, I don't even understand the animosity. Do you get upset that Hispanic Americans have the right to vote? Or resent that women can exercise free speech? I bet you don't.
Do you worry about what your heterosexual neighbors of a different religion do in their bedroom?
Do you think Buddhists are destroying our way of life?
Our rights are for everyone. Every one of us should be upset if anyone's civil liberties are infringed upon be it free speech, the right to gather, the right to vote, the right to defend themselves.
You should be pissed off about the infringement, not the other way around. You'd sure as hell be pissed off if *you* weren't allowed to marry because you were of the "wrong" religion, or race, or sex.
And before someone starts bitching about whether marriage is a right, re-read the pre-amble to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Then tell me with a straight face why we should start deciding who should be allowed to pursue *their* happiness.
-john
Very well stated. You want to stop losing so much ground in the political theater staunch Republicans? Read and understand what this man is saying right her and then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Homo wedding cake is just a distraction to keep idiots' eyes off the ball, and a tool of division for the Left.
Someone who uses a term like 'homo wedding cake' looks pretty foolish claiming others are idiots and your statement in and of itself is a tool of division of your party from reality.
From the Libertarian Party...
While I believe this to be true I don't think it is an effective ad and I do think we need to outline a more effective narrative.
Along the lines of a picture of a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow and some menacing big guys in the background and a caption "Samuel Colt made them equal".
IMO women are the perfect demographic for the right to carry. I have no idea how we haven't locked that demographic down.
Petite woman gets out of the van with young kids, menacing big guys in the background. Caption "Police are only *minutes* away".
You get my drift.
-john
Homo wedding cake is just a distraction to keep idiots' eyes off the ball, and a tool of division for the Left.
My aunts are Jewish. I hold no animosity or dislike for Jews or things Jewish. Yet, when I was young, I'd use common use phrases like "jew'd down". I didn't think anything of it. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. Once, I said it in front of one of my aunts and she pointed out (gently) that even if I didn't mean it in a derogatory way that it *was* derogatory and it hurt people's feelings.
Now I try to think before I speak.
-john
The problem I have with the gay marriage analogy is that the Constitution says nothing about marriage in any form.....but it does specifically bar the Federal government from interfering with the natural right to self defense via firearms.
The 9th Amendment does say:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
.....But does not mention marriage specifically
If we take the pure Constitutional stance that many Libertarians claim to adhere to (as do I), that the powers of Congress are limited to those granted in Article 1 Sec 8, then the Federal government should remain silent on Marriage. The 10th Amend would then dictate that such issues were reserved for the States and they could make laws as they pleased.
There are also those who believe that the the 2nd Amend only prevented Federal interference with the right to bear arms or any natural right and that only a certain reading of the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the States into the Bill of Rights.
I disagree in that I cant see how the Founders would have thought it was OK for ANY government to interfere with the natural rights of man.
Im not sure if the government recognition of marriage is a natural right. It is your right to marry whom ever you want but I believe the States are legally in their right to recognize it or not.
What I am 100% sure of is that the right to defend ones self or family from a bear, a bad guy, or the government is an "unalienable" right given to us by our humanity.
The problem I have with the gay marriage analogy is that the Constitution says nothing about marriage in any form.....but it does specifically bar the Federal government from interfering with the natural right to self defense via firearms.
The 9th Amendment does say:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
.....But does not mention marriage specifically
If we take the pure Constitutional stance that many Libertarians claim to adhere to (as do I), that the powers of Congress are limited to those granted in Article 1 Sec 8, then the Federal government should remain silent on Marriage. The 10th Amend would then dictate that such issues were reserved for the States and they could make laws as they pleased.
There are also those who believe that the the 2nd Amend only prevented Federal interference with the right to bear arms or any natural right and that only a certain reading of the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the States into the Bill of Rights.
I disagree in that I cant see how the Founders would have thought it was OK for ANY government to interfere with the natural rights of man.
Im not sure if the government recognition of marriage is a natural right. It is your right to marry whom ever you want but I believe the States are legally in their right to recognize it or not.
What I am 100% sure of is that the right to defend ones self or family from a bear, a bad guy, or the government is an "unalienable" right given to us by our humanity.
So you agree that a technicality should keep one person from their blatantly obvious rights but the same technicality shouldn't keep you from yours. Seems like the exact opposite of equality to me.
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 15:58
The problem I have with the gay marriage analogy is that the Constitution says nothing about marriage in any form.....but it does specifically bar the Federal government from interfering with the natural right to self defense via firearms.
Yeah I've read the founding documents several times and I have yet to find where the Founding Fathers wrote anything about sodomy.
See, now this is what I mean....don't dare stand by your principles, or expect to be castigated. I didn't make any jokes, I didn't demean anyone, I just stated that it's NOT specifically enumerated in the Bill of rights, but the 2nd Amendment IS. That's the current OP for anyone who stands up for traditional marriage - attack.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm not going to change yours, and you are not going to change mine. We may respectfully disagree, but I am not cowed.
Edit: Didn't want to make this another gay marriage thread fight. Didn't start it.
Let me explain carefully the difference and why I feel they aren't even on the same playing field - with a question, and the obvious answer:
"Can your 'right' to gay marriage protect my 2nd amendment right to bear arms?" No...
"Can my 2nd amendment right to bear arms protect your 'right' to gay marriage?" You bet your ass (no pun intended) it DOES.
Therefore, one of them is CLEARLY MUCH more important than the other, so don't try to equate them in order to forward your agenda...
Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
So you agree that a technicality should keep one person from their blatantly obvious rights but the same technicality shouldn't keep you from yours. Seems like the exact opposite of equality to me.
Well that would be one way to interpret what I said but its not even close to the intent. These so called "technicalities" are also know as the law.
For the record I am fine with gay marriage. But I am also a FIRM beliver that we live in a Nation of LAWS and not MEN. If you dont like the law...vote for people to change it or move to a State with laws you like. The Federal goverment has ZERO juristiction in marriage.
Like it or not that is how our Republic works and it has protected us far more than it has hurt us
See, now this is what I mean....don't dare stand by your principles, or expect to be castigated. I didn't make any jokes, I didn't demean anyone, I just stated that it's NOT specifically enumerated in the Bill of rights, but the 2nd Amendment IS. That's the current OP for anyone who stands up for traditional marriage - attack.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm not going to change yours, and you are not going to change mine. We may respectfully disagree, but I am not cowed.
The difference is that your 'opinion' is currently preventing a large segment of Americans from enjoying the same public recognition of monogamy & joining that you and I enjoy. How would you like if my 'opinion' was that you couldn't practice your religion of choice publicly?
The fact that someone felt the need to bring it up during a discussion about firearms speaks volumes about how silly it is that we fight for our right but others aren't allowed to do things that don't fall in line with what we feel is right. It's complete hypocrisy no matter how you try to excuse it & serves only to make 'our' cause look more selfish and less about 'freedom' than we claim it to be. Freedom doesn't mean much unless it's freedom for all.
We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between "rights" and "privileges". To differentiate one could ask the question "at who's expense?" If there is an answer other than "nobody's but mine" than it is a privilege.
As a spiritual exercise you have the right to marry anyone. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you have to right to have the people or the state recognize that for other purposes.
Like it or not that is how our Republic works and it has protected us far more than it has hurt us
Easily said by a heterosexual who has the ability to marry someone who he loves. Put yourself in a gay person's shoes. After all, we ask people to try to imagine being robbed or raped all the time to justify firearms but that door swings both ways (pun unintentional) and we have to imagine life in a country where those you are supposedly equal to are allowed to marry the person they love but you are not simply because someone else doesn't approve the other person doesn't approve the person you wish to marry to.
Seems more than slightly off topic in a conversation regarding firearms. I guess this is part of what pisses me off about the whole gay marriage thing. To them it's a life changing restriction and to us it's a pawn used in a firearm discussion to make a point. Uhmkay.
The difference is that your 'opinion' is currently preventing a large segment of Americans from enjoying the same public recognition of monogamy & joining that you and I enjoy. How would you like if my 'opinion' was that you couldn't practice your religion of choice publicly?
The fact that someone felt the need to bring it up during a discussion about firearms speaks volumes about how silly it is that we fight for our right but others aren't allowed to do things that don't fall in line with what we feel is right. It's complete hypocrisy no matter how you try to excuse it & serves only to make 'our' cause look more selfish and less about 'freedom' than we claim it to be. Freedom doesn't mean much unless it's freedom for all.
It is not an "opinion" it is the LAW OF THE LAND. Your personal opinion or mine is meaningless. As for religion, the 1st Amendment prevents the Federal Government for establishing a National religion or interfering with the free exercise there of. Therefore, the right to marry for religious purposes is protected. Do you not see the difference or did you not read what I posted?
Yeah I've read the founding documents several times and I have yet to find where the Founding Fathers wrote anything about sodomy.
This is why we can't have nice things.
-john
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 17:53
This is why we can't have nice things.
-john
And that bovine feces you spewed in your last post is why you and the rest of your ilk will never win the silent majority over to your views on such matters.
A better analogy for the lefties would be flag burning and the right to free speech. I find the act incredibly despicable but it is protected under the 1st Amend. Most "progressives" support the right of free expression but deny the right of self protection because they don't understand guns and hate them.
They feel that the right for free speech should have almost no restrictions though words can cause terrible injury....like the media influencing juries to convict innocent people.
To them it's a life changing restriction and to us it's a pawn used in a firearm discussion to make a point.
So if there was (and actually there currently is) a push to make ALL states recognize a gay marriage license from another state you have a problem trying to go for national CCW reciprocity on the same grounds? Forcing recognition of a license for something you don't want in your state means the other side must accept licenses for things they don't want. Yeah, I have ZERO problems tying the two issues together.
My personal opinion on gay marriage isn't religion-based......it's deviant behavior and the parts don't fit (i.e. a biological approach). The state I live in doesn't recognize it, but DOES have CCW. If we are forced by the courts to accept a gay marriage license from any other state then by damned I should be able to carry in NYC if I want.
You seem to think it should be about freedoms in general, and I don't necessarily disagree. HOWEVER, facing reality means that they'd force gay marriage on us in a heartbeat but would be reluctant to do so with CCW. I say horseshit to that.....you want one? I get the other based on the same premise. To not see the opportunity, i.e. a silver lining if you will, and make your stand independently on principle is ignoring reality. Take advantage of it I say.
It is not an "opinion" it is the LAW OF THE LAND. Your personal opinion or mine is meaningless. As for religion, the 1st Amendment prevents the Federal Government for establishing a National religion or interfering with the free exercise there of. Therefore, the right to marry for religious purposes is protected. Do you not see the difference or did you not read what I posted?
That's a non sequitur. Providing same civil liberties to all Man under civil law doesn't mean The Church must support, recognize or advocate anything.
As you pointed out, there is NOT some enumerated list of all rights you enjoy as a free man. That's not the idea.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Seriously folks, imagine if there was a law that indicated that Catholics right to civil marriage was no longer allowed or recognized. Based on your "constitutional" perspective, you'd have to say that's peachy, right? Whell, it isn't enumerated as a right in the Constitution....
Horse-hockey. It's against the spirit of the Constitution.
-john
And that bovine feces you spewed in your last post is why you and the rest of your ilk will never win the silent majority over to your views on such matters.
Which ilk would that be?
-john
The difference is that your 'opinion' is currently preventing a LARGE SEGMENT OF AMERICANS from enjoying the same public recognition of monogamy & joining that you and I enjoy.
Let's be honest here on the numbers, it's 3.8% of the population. I grow very weary of hearing stuff like this (especially in Seattle, where the number is higher), when the fact is that it's a relatively SMALL segment of the population. Those that are diabetic outnumber those that are homosexual by over three to one...
Rights are for all people, so let's not fudge the perception about how many people.
The fact that someone felt the need to bring it up during a discussion about firearms speaks volumes about how silly it is that we fight for our right but others aren't allowed to do things that don't fall in line with what we feel is right. It's complete hypocrisy no matter how you try to excuse it & serves only to make 'our' cause look more selfish and less about 'freedom' than we claim it to be. Freedom doesn't mean much unless it's freedom for all.
Actually, the fact that they chose to include firearms in the constitution, but did not bother to mention anything about marriage, speaks volumes.
The fact that the two come up together in the same argument shows how much people fight to try and bring gay marriage to the front of the debate when they are unrelated issues.
Fact is, I couldn't care less about gay marriage. I doesn't impact me in any way. I sure as hell don't feel the need to act as though it's on the same level as a debate about a right that our founding document explicitly protects...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and is not part of the Constitution
Seriously folks, imagine if there was a law that indicated that Catholics right to civil marriage was no longer allowed or recognized. Based on your "constitutional" perspective, you'd have to say that's peachy, right? Whell, it isn't enumerated as a right in the Constitution....
This is already prohibited by the 1st Amend (Federally).
-john
Traditional marriage predates the Constitution and such a law would never pass in any State though I guess you could try....on a State level
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 18:57
So if there was (and actually there currently is) a push to make ALL states recognize a gay marriage license from another state you have a problem trying to go for national CCW reciprocity on the same grounds? Forcing recognition of a license for something you don't want in your state means the other side must accept licenses for things they don't want. Yeah, I have ZERO problems tying the two issues together.
My personal opinion on gay marriage isn't religion-based......it's deviant behavior and the parts don't fit (i.e. a biological approach). The state I live in doesn't recognize it, but DOES have CCW. If we are forced by the courts to accept a gay marriage license from any other state then by damned I should be able to carry in NYC if I want.
You seem to think it should be about freedoms in general, and I don't necessarily disagree. HOWEVER, facing reality means that they'd force gay marriage on us in a heartbeat but would be reluctant to do so with CCW. I say horseshit to that.....you want one? I get the other based on the same premise. To not see the opportunity, i.e. a silver lining if you will, and make your stand independently on principle is ignoring reality. Take advantage of it I say.
This is spot on.
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 19:00
Which ilk would that be?
-john
The ones that share your views as posted in post #55 on page #3 of this thread.
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and is not part of the Constitution
The context of the framing of the Constitution seems very relevant to me.
Seriously folks, imagine if there was a law that indicated that Catholics right to civil marriage was no longer allowed or recognized. Based on your "constitutional" perspective, you'd have to say that's peachy, right? Whell, it isn't enumerated as a right in the Constitution....
This is already prohibited by the 1st Amend (Federally).
Again this is CIVIL marriage.
-john
My personal opinion on gay marriage isn't religion-based......it's deviant behavior and the parts don't fit (i.e. a biological approach).
So you think we should deny them rights because you don't like them?
-john
platoonDaddy
02-18-14, 20:51
So you think we should deny them rights because you don't like them?
-john
Educate me, what rights?
So you think we should deny them rights because you don't like them?
-john
Funny, I don't see where I wrote that.
I don't personally have to agree with something to concede that they have rights too. But I'm not going to make the "moral" stand of saying "Gay marriage being forced on my state is a totally separate issue from national CCW reciprocity. Each can stand on it's own merits." That's Fantasyland talk.....I'm talking reality, here and now. They'd gladly reject one while rejoicing in the other. I say tie the two together, as they'd both be a Full Faith and Credit issue. In other words I'm talking about using modern politics (and using a Constitutional goose/gander take) and getting what we want too, not denying the other.
So if a state like say Alabama decided that interracial marriage was not legal (which used to be a law in many places), it should be ok? I am all for state's rights but at some point we have to draw the line. Though marriage isn't in the Constitution (there is that silly thing about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
IMO the federal gov't needs to get out of the abortion business, marriage business, gun business, and focus on the job it needs to do. Congress is completely inept and can't even do the job it's supposed to yet they feel the need to get into everything that isn't their responsibility. So when people complain about "their rights" being violated just remember you allowed it to happen in other ways.
*Non attorney disclaimer- I am not gay, I don't play a gay person on TV and I don't want to get married to another guy.
The problem I have with the gay marriage analogy is that the Constitution says nothing about marriage in any form.....but it does specifically bar the Federal government from interfering with the natural right to self defense via firearms.
The 9th Amendment does say:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
.....But does not mention marriage specifically
If we take the pure Constitutional stance that many Libertarians claim to adhere to (as do I), that the powers of Congress are limited to those granted in Article 1 Sec 8, then the Federal government should remain silent on Marriage. The 10th Amend would then dictate that such issues were reserved for the States and they could make laws as they pleased.
There are also those who believe that the the 2nd Amend only prevented Federal interference with the right to bear arms or any natural right and that only a certain reading of the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the States into the Bill of Rights.
I disagree in that I cant see how the Founders would have thought it was OK for ANY government to interfere with the natural rights of man.
Im not sure if the government recognition of marriage is a natural right. It is your right to marry whom ever you want but I believe the States are legally in their right to recognize it or not.
What I am 100% sure of is that the right to defend ones self or family from a bear, a bad guy, or the government is an "unalienable" right given to us by our humanity.
SeriousStudent
02-18-14, 21:15
And now a few words from our sponsor...... Gents, some of you are getting a bit overheated. Step back, chill, have a relaxing walk or something like that.
We got some good news from the 9th Circuit. Let's be happy about that, and focus on the good news. Some people here could win a free Corvette and then bitch about the color of the paint.
Focus, gents. Focus.
Funny, I don't see where I wrote that.
I don't personally have to agree with something to concede that they have rights too.
It seemed implied. Glad to hear it wasn't.
-john
The ruling did not deem restrictions on concealed carry unconstitutional. It did not say unilaterally that "may issue" is unconstitutional. It DID say that may issue, combined with a ban on open carry, is unconstitutional.
Considering this, Illinois and New York, I get the feeling there is a trend to allow, but restrict.
-john
I would bitch about the gas prices. :)
And now a few words from our sponsor...... Gents, some of you are getting a bit overheated. Step back, chill, have a relaxing walk or something like that.
We got some good news from the 9th Circuit. Let's be happy about that, and focus on the good news. Some people here could win a free Corvette and then bitch about the color of the paint.
Focus, gents. Focus.
So if a state like say Alabama decided that interracial marriage was not legal (which used to be a law in many places), it should be ok? I am all for state's rights but at some point we have to draw the line. Though marriage isn't in the Constitution (there is that silly thing about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
.
The whole life liberty and pursuit of happiness is not part of the Constitution and has no legal application.
I tried to keep my comments devoid of emotion and personal opinion. They are strictly technical.
I would bitch about the gas prices. :)
And someone putting a DPMS AR in the trunk! :meeting:
SeriousStudent
02-18-14, 22:08
I would bitch about the gas prices. :)
My new boss has a Vette. You and he would have quite the conversation.
I don't think he has a DPMS in the trunk - it's probably an Oly or Hesse.
I don't see where I used emotion or personal opinion. But, in order to avoid being a hypocrite one cannot claim to support rights like the 2nd Amendment and yet be for discrimination. But, hey when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in yet another silly election over non-issues we can all embrace each other and bond again in our hatred of Hillary Clinton.
The whole life liberty and pursuit of happiness is not part of the Constitution and has no legal application.
I tried to keep my comments devoid of emotion and personal opinion. They are strictly technical.
I don't see where I used emotion or personal opinion. But, in order to avoid being a hypocrite one cannot claim to support rights like the 2nd Amendment and yet be for discrimination. But, hey when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in yet another silly election over non-issues we can all embrace each other and bond again in our hatred of Hillary Clinton.
I respect you even more now.
No homo.
Since this is a thread about a Constitutional ruling I'm trying to keep my comments on those terms. There is a major difference between the right of self defense and the state recognition of marriage in the view of the court. They are not on the same level. This is a fact regardless of what you or I or anyone may or may not FEEL should be the case.
I don't see where I used emotion or personal opinion. But, in order to avoid being a hypocrite one cannot claim to support rights like the 2nd Amendment and yet be for discrimination. But, hey when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in yet another silly election over non-issues we can all embrace each other and bond again in our hatred of Hillary Clinton.
Agreed. If a group openly fights to deny basic freedoms to another group that they themselves enjoy and then later tries to use that which they fought to deny to better their own cause.... Well... just get used to saying the term President Clinton again because that's what you'll be doing wondering what could have possibly been done to lose yet another gimme election while claiming voter fraud is responsible.
Moose-Knuckle
02-19-14, 02:54
But, in order to avoid being a hypocrite one cannot claim to support rights like the 2nd Amendment and yet be for discrimination.
What discrimination? The 2nd Amendment is in the founding documents. Homosexual marriage was a non-issue for the founders. The institution of marriage pre-dates the founding documents and is widely accepted as a religious rite. Of the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) which ones have historically supported such notions? I can think of none. And yes I know that there are some modern Christian denominations that give a thumbs up to homosexual marriage and they have splintered because of it.
Moose-Knuckle
02-19-14, 03:04
If a group openly fights to deny basic freedoms to another group that they themselves enjoy and then later tries to use that which they fought to deny to better their own cause....
I'm sorry but who is fighting to deny basic freedoms? What freedoms, you mean homosexual marriage?
Their is no such thing as homosexual marriage, its manufactured of recent times. Truth, there are more heterosexuals that "care" about homosexual marriage than their are actual homosexuals. Social engineering at its zenith. The LBGT crowd are just the latest "victims of society" for the left to exploit.
I guess I started this whole thing. So in the interest of bringing this back to it's original intent let's stay focused on the actual court ruling and implications and leave the gay marriage out of it.
I'm sorry but who is fighting to deny basic freedoms? What freedoms, you mean homosexual marriage?
The GOP has made it well-known that they are very much so against gay marriage. Why act like you have no idea what we're talking about? Does this somehow help your stance?
Their is no such thing as homosexual marriage, its manufactured of recent times.
Way to contradict yourself. So which is it? There's no such thing or there is indeed such a thing but it was recently manufactured? I'm clearly trying to have an intelligent debate with someone lacking the required skills.
Truth, there are more heterosexuals that "care" about homosexual marriage than their are actual homosexuals. Social engineering at its zenith. The LBGT crowd are just the latest "victims of society" for the left to exploit.
I forgot, we only allow basic freedoms to groups with large enough #'s that we can't sweep them under the rug. How in the hell do we keep coming back to the size of the group being oppressed as if that has anything to do with anything?
"Give me your tired huddled masses... as long as it's masses and not a small group because we don't give limited groups freedoms that we give to masses."
Just seems like more Republican misdirection that continues to push voters away who are tired of being made to look like idiots for it's party's stance (or lack thereof) on topics.
I guess I started this whole thing. So in the interest of bringing this back to it's original intent let's stay focused on the actual court ruling and implications and leave the gay marriage out of it.
Fine by me. I wasn't the one who brought it up to begin with as some sort of validation for our cause which, after all our side has done to fight it, is disgusting. I've been saying all along we should stop alienating all groups who don't hold every single one of 'our' views exactly the same we do. Prime example: recently in Colorado we recalled some politicians who got out of hand with their bills and let the power go to their head. Gun people and anti-gun people think that was the sole causation. The fact of the matter was these same politicians also signed some bills regarding wild land and those who back the EPA also got heated under the collar. This is what made it such a landslide but you won't hear this discussed because guns are the hot topic. The fact of the matter is that the TREE HUGGERS were on our side and contributed significantly. Yes, those same tree huggers who cause you to buy a big diesel truck and then 'roll coal' around town because you think they're after your rights to do so. I've been saying for years now that fighting to discriminate against gays as it applies to marriage is stupid because it flies in the face of what it is we're trying to do to preserve our basic rights. Now that the majority (again, same group who no longer vote Republican) of people have realized how selfish it is and are making strides in overcoming ignorant people's take on this topic those same ignorant people want to jump on the bandwagon to further their own agenda? You're a special kind of ignorant.selfish if you can't see how stupid that makes your part look no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig. If you cavemen had a little bit of foresight a number of years ago and realized that freedom for one group (no matter the size) was freedom for ALL groups you could have championed that cause and THEN used it to further your own freedom-based agenda. Doing so now only serves to make you look even stupider than the majority of the nation already thought you looked.
I'm done.
Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he will not be requesting an en banc review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Press-Release-on-Peruta.pdf).
Unless another group requests an en banc review, the ruling goes into effect on 02-27-2014.
In light of this announcement, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is telling it's residents that they will only be accepting four permit applications a day due to "manpower/budgetary issues".
Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he will not be requesting an en banc review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Press-Release-on-Peruta.pdf).
Unless another group requests an en banc review, the ruling goes into effect on 02-27-2014.
In light of this announcement, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is telling it's residents that they will only be accepting four permit applications a day due to "manpower/budgetary issues".
Incredible.
-john
Eurodriver
02-23-14, 08:48
Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he will not be requesting an en banc review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Press-Release-on-Peruta.pdf).
Unless another group requests an en banc review, the ruling goes into effect on 02-27-2014.
In light of this announcement, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is telling it's residents that they will only be accepting four permit applications a day due to "manpower/budgetary issues".
In 2012 San Diego County's population was 3,177,000+. At that rate, if everyone in the county wanted one they could have started issuing permits when Jesus was born and they would still have permits left to issue after all of us on M4C were dead. (This doesn't account for weekends, holidays, or population growth, either)
Eurodriver
02-23-14, 08:52
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-second-amendment-must-be-changed.html/?ref=YF
http://cdn.wallstcheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/163570239-e1393025755211.jpg
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment
Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
At 93 he's certainly entitled to his opinion, however he is conveniently forgetting the history of firearms in England, before our Constitution was written.
Our laws are based on English Common Law and our Constitution was framed with the influence of England fresh in the minds of all these former Englishmen.
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-appeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit
CA Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a request for an en banc review.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has until 03-06-14 to decide on if they will do an en banc review.
The SD Sheriff (the defendant in the case) declined to request en banc rehearing. The State of California and the Brady Campaign had requested rehearing en banc, but a decision issued today stated that amici cannot file such a motion, construed the motions as motions to intervene, and denied them.
That should pretty much wrap this one up.
I enjoy seeing the PRC and Brady Bunch being told to **** off.
We don't want the idea of freedom spreading too far and wide however. Pretty soon, everyone will want it.
Okay, so I am super confused.
Is this case settled? If it is, then we should have a split between the 9th and 3rd circuits. Since the SCOTUS refused to hear Drake the 3rd's decision saying that "Justifyable Need" was constitutional stands. What can be done to get the Curcuit split rectified... in our favor.
Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he will not be requesting an en banc review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Press-Release-on-Peruta.pdf).
Unless another group requests an en banc review, the ruling goes into effect on 02-27-2014.
In light of this announcement, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is telling it's residents that they will only be accepting four permit applications a day due to "manpower/budgetary issues".
LOL, if he said this he's a magnificent idiot. Anyone else forsee that on the day this becomes effective, Applicant #5 in line will be a representative for Calguns and they'll have a motion submitted to the court before the end of the day for obstruction? :rolleyes:
platoonDaddy
11-12-14, 16:51
Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego
10-56971
Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722
Peruta stand as binding precedent for the Ninth Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/246350943/Peruta-Intervention-Denied-Order
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/new-court-decision-likely-ends-california-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/
What can be done to get the Curcuit split rectified... in our favor.
Pretty much nothing. Lower courts HAVE to rule in a way consistent with higher courts in their "chain of command" so to speak. So district courts in circuits that have decided that the right to bear arms extends outside the home have to rule any further cases in that manner. If they get to the appeals level, while not technically required to rule consistently with themselves, they try their best to unless there is good reason. Otherwise you'd see new judges constantly overturning what their predecessors did.
So essentially, we need a SCOTUS ruling at this point.
wonder which california ban will get struck down next.
safe handgun list?
assault weapon ban?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.