California's New CC Ruling

[Dean Romig]

In a 7/4 decision California reversed a 2014 decision and says the Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not guarantee the right to carry concealed.

Will the last true America to leave California please bring Old Glory?






.

[OH Osthaus]

The 9th circus court jurisdiction covers much more than California

It's the western district

[10 bore]

What about open carry?

[J.B. Books]

"Open" carry of a handgun, loaded or unloaded was made illegal in California in 2012. Without a CC permit having a handgun in your possession sounds like it could be a crime in that state now.

[Bruce Day]

Open carry in rural or non regulated areas in California remains lawful.

Concealed carry remains lawful if the sherrif issues a permit. Some do, others want proof you need to carry one. Concealed carry differs county to county.

Being in possession of a handgun or any gun is not unlawful , it must be transported in the trunk or a lock box if in the passenger compartment.

There are plenty of true Americans in California.

Remember that until the 2008 Heller decision there was no clear law on the individual right to even posess guns. Before then there was much debate and the 2nd Amendment refers to gun possession in the context of a well regulated militia . If you are a strict constructionist of the constitution then the words well regulated militia are meaningful and place the right to bear arms in context. If you are liberal with the wording then you disregard well regulated militia. Heller was a narrow decision led by Scalia, the NRA is well aware of the issues, when was the last time you saw "well regulated militia " quoted by the NRA rather than just " right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

As for me, I like my shotguns, I like to hunt and I live and hunt in states where both are traditions and popular. But I am well aware of the difficulties with the second amendment and the shifting interpretations. We could be back to pre Heller and the ways things used to be

[Kensal Rise]

This is preaching to the choir. But for the basically literate, nothing could be more clear in its meaning:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One must keep in mind that at the time of the Constitution's ratification, the US had NO standing Army, and relied on an armed citizenry for security. Some of them even carried pistols...

Then there's that sticky little phase, "shall not be infringed." If you are unsure, go look up the definition of "infringed."

Also note that the words "hunting, sport," or "recreation" are not part of this Amendment.

[John Truitt]

Well said Mr Campbell.

The key word being Militia. Who is the militia? = we the people/ the citizens of the US.


Three branches of government with checks and balances. We are the checks and balances of the government.

It is a four legged stool not a three legged stool.

It really is not open or up to interpretation.

[Bruce Day]

It's not militia. It's well regulated militia. How are "we the citizens of the United States" well regulated? Maybe the words of the amendment don't mean anything. Let's just forget "well regulated " because it leads to uncomfortable issues.

So what does "well regulated" mean to you? Who regulates? Can any mob of citizens who do not like the decisions of their government grab their AR 15's and storm city hall?

If the wording of the second amendment is so clear that it is not open to interpretation by reasonable minds, why has this issue been so debated and written about for the last 5O years at least? I'm with you, let's just forget "well regulated militia " and let it go at that. It's too inconvenient.

Note the well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's what it says . It doesn't say free people, it says free state. So maybe the state regulates? I'm no expert , you tell me what each and every one of those words mean.

As for the people bearing arms being the checks and balances on the government, did some southerners try that before? Like in 1860?

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

Open carry in rural or non regulated areas in California remains lawful.

Not after 2012 from what I can find.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

http://smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-in-california/

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

It's not militia. It's well regulated militia. How are "we the citizens of the United States" well regulated? Maybe the words of the amendment don't mean anything. Let's just forget "well regulated " because it leads to uncomfortable issues.

So what does "well regulated" mean to you? Who regulates? Can any mob of citizens who do not like the decisions of their government grab their AR 15's and storm city hall?

If the wording of the second amendment is so clear that it is not open to interpretation by reasonable minds, why has this issue been so debated and written about for the last 5O years at least? I'm with you, let's just forget "well regulated militia " and let it go at that. It's too inconvenient.

As for the people bearing arms being the checks and balances on the government, did some southerners try that before? Like in 1860?

Sorry Bruce, you really should know better.

The 2nd Amendment was written with the English language as used in the 1700's, how it is used has changed. "Well Regulated" simply meant a working or functional militia. It was not meant to mean "regulated" as in strictly controlled. The 2nd Amendment was not written to give the federal government oversight of the people's right to own firearms, it was written and included in the Bill of Rights so the government would be powerless to control the peoples right to firearms.