California's New CC Ruling
 

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?






.

The 9th circus court jurisdiction covers much more than California

It's the western district

What about open carry?

"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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Not after 2012 from what I can find.

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

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

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.

I'll remember that. Well regulated doesn't have the plain meaning of well regulated and necessary for the security of a free State doesn't refer to a State at all. My fault.

I like my guns. Off to Montana in September and October, then Minnesota , South Dakota, Oklahoma , Kansas with my guns and bird dogs. I'll assure them that the second amendment is so clear that my individual right to bear arms is not in question . Nothing to be concerned about.

There are political powers that want to limit our freedom when it comes to firearms, they have tried in the past, present and will again in the future.

To get one to believe the term "well regulated" meant any federal government control of firearms one would have to believe that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers wanted to have some degree of control of citizen ownership and use of firearms. Really? This was following a rebellion against British authority who ordered gun control by force following the Boston Tea Party. Let's just say given the events and time period, I don't think so. It was the citizens ownership and use of private firearms that made the Revolution possible.

I
 

My ancestors were part of the Massachusetts Militia at the time of the revolution . They drilled, practiced maneuvers, had officers and were regulated. They were not part of unruly and ineffective mobs that could be cut to pieces by trained British infantry . A direct ancestor has a statue in his memory and a town named after him.

Yes I believe that the participants of the early constitutional conventions knew of the importance of the state militias and the ability of citizens to maintain arms in support of those militias. Of that I have no doubt. After the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was disbanded and it was not until 1789 that a single regular Army regiment was formed which had responsibility for a vast amount of territory. Well regulated state militias were of utmost importance. The US has always had a mix of standing and militia forces.

That's nice Bruce, good for you, my 4th Great Grandfather on my mother's side was a Patriot in the Revolution. I have no idea what they practiced for drills. Militia's were different than "Regulars" and they were considered undisciplined if not unruly by military commanders. When used in combat they were placed in front of the "Regulars", not to give them an advantage, not because they were somehow better, not to make them cannon fodder (at least not deliberately), it was to prevent a disorganized mass retreat in the face of the enemy. They were less likely to do so if they had to run through lines of the Regulars.

We have very different understandings of the role of state militias during the Revolutionary War.

Read your own citation , smart gun laws. You can still carry a handgun while hunting. There are many exceptions.

the Massachusetts militias of the earliest days were of one class of soldier - they stood their ground on Lexington Green and at Concord Bridge, fought a running battle back to Boston and manned "Bunker Hill"

the lesser reputation of the militias was formed by the longer war, they were known for not standing up the the British regulars (a hellatious task) - As the war in the south advanced General Greene and Daniel Morgan used that to their advantage at Cow Pens - the militia was told they were not expected to hold- all that was asked of them was to fire two volleys before they broke. when they did and the British gave chase thinking the field was theirs - they instead ran into steady and firm troops that held and fired and took the day, the devastation of that day led to Guilford Courthouse which drove Cornwallis to fire his cannon into his own troops and forced him to Yorktown in hopes of resupply or rescue

and that is as they say - the rest of the story

The militias were so lightly regulated they were not considered to be reliable. However in many situations they were effective. At the battle of the Cowpens Brigadier General Daniel Morgan chose to fight on open country with a river in his rear, this was considered high risk as it allowed the British to able to more effectively use their cavalry and provided a difficult route of retreat. It was risky move, when asked why he did this he said "I would not have had a swamp in view of my militia on any consideration; they would have made for it, and nothing could have detained them from it. As to retreat, it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. When men are forced to fight, they will sell their lives dearly. Had I crossed the river, one-half of the militia would immediately have abandoned me."

My great grand mother Nellie Putnam thanks you. The Putnams were at Concord and Bunker Hill. Others were with the Wisconsin Regiments at Gettysburg.

The well regulated state militias of the day in the Revolutionary War and subsequent wars held the line against the best of the enemy.

I have read in the dim past that in the usage of the day that well regulated referred to well equipped or\and well trained. I do not think the authors had any intention of restrictions.

Yes provided it is hunting season and you have a hunting license, and they believe you. Of course nothing mentioned about target shooting or open carry for personal defense so no exception there. Cali is certainly not a place where I would want to take a chance having a handgun for any purpose and that is precisely what they are trying to accomplish which apparently you think is smart?

Seems there are contradictory thoughts on the matter of militias.

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/te...-and-regulars/

We have very liberal gun laws out here and I like it that way. No so the east or California.

But I realize that few articles of the Constitution are so argued about and so open to interpretation as the Second Amendment. Seems there are some who are convinced their own interpretation is the only possible one and everyone else is wrong.

For the sake of entertainment, let us revisit high school English/grammar:

"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."

This is ONE sentence.
It contains three clauses.
It specifies a "militia" as being necessary for the security of a free State (the USA)
It specifies that militia should be well-regulated. As in not a free-wheeling mob.
It then connects the People with a specific RIGHT: The Right to "keep and bear arms."
It goes further in stating that this Right "shall not be infringed." In other words, limited.

What in God's name is there to "interpret" about any of that?

You are so right. All the courts of appeal, all the judges that have different interpretations are wrong. They know nothing. Case closed.

To say nothing of your ancestor Anne Putnam, who in 1692/3 at the age of 11 was partially responsible for the execution of at least four women, she having co-accused them of practicing witchcraft. One of the accused and subsequently executed, Rebecca Nurse, was a good wife and mother residing on the other side of Meeting House Road from the property my family owned in Danvers (formerly Salem Village). I learned to hunt pheasants with a Parker Trojan 12 in the cornfields of the Rebecca Nurse property.

This all just a tidbit I thought would be interesting... Though totally off topic.






.

Now now lets play nice. We PGCA members are basically on the same page. The real problem is that the folks who interpret this stuff- legislators, people with black robes and the State Capitals or White House are for the most part scared stiff of guns. They never shot skeet, they never hunted, they think all food comes shrink wrapped, they don't own any guns and have never shot one. And the hardest part for us is that they are probably the 3rd or 4th generation in their family who have that in their DNA.
It doesn't matter if they are Ds or Rs. They are far removed from having any knowledge of what they have the power to regulate. And the press who report on this are in the same boat. I guarantee Anderson Cooper never shot a gun.
So the way they look at (interpret) the words are always going to be different than the way we do.
I don't know what my conclusion is.
We have a monumental educational and experiential task ahead to change the people who regulate us. We can scream that this is what the constitution means until we are blue, but if the folks in charge couldn't care less about guns, we are going to lose.
And of course it helps not when some mentally deranged person kills 26 people with a pack of guns.
I'll just shut up.

....or shoots and kills a young singer right after her performance while she is signing autographs.
Those are the kinds of people who, unfortunately, cause all gun owners to be painted with the same brush.






.

You are clear as a bell John. Keep in mind that liberalism IS a mental disorder. Need I elaborate?

George is also on point. The problem is, D or R, we as a society have become more urban than rural. Bruce has a point. I believe that the country is higher in the middle and everything loose rolls either east or west.

I'm climbing down from my soapbox now and going to shoot one of my guns. That always makes me feel better.:bigbye:

This is a pic of me standing in the crowded Lobby of the Lexington Hyatt regency. Imagine if I was standing in a lobby in New York or LA. No one was feeling threatened. No one called 911. Security didn't taze me and cuff me. People just looked and admired the gun or walked by. Kentucky has the most liberal gun laws of any state in the union. It's been part of our heritage from the beginning. Thankfully the Pinheads have so far been kept at bay.

lookin good there mike...charlie

How ambiguous is this: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?" I would wager that the 1st A has generated far more litigation than the 2nd A.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been litigated for 200+ years. That is one of the responsibilities of the Federal Courts. Anyone who doesn't understand that probably failed Civics 101 in high school. Mr. Day has made the point that the 2nd is no more clear than any other provision of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

This discussion can go on and on here, just as it has for a couple of hundred years in the courts. It is senseless to argue what has already been argued over and over again. If you want to make a difference then pick a side and do something about it. It is called voting, and encouraging others to do the same.
I have no intention of turning this into a political discussion and will not mention any political parties or politicians. That being said, if you generally look at things with a liberal mindset, then you might well consider abortion a women's right to control her own body rather than an unborn childs right to a life. Or you may feel that the financially better off should be required to redistribute the fruits of their labor to support those who choose not to try to excel. And you might also think that a gun, any gun, is a savage device that has no place in a civilized society and that the constitution of the United States is a living document that needs to evolve to represent what you and others that think like you feel is the new and better way, and it is the job of the government to make sure that the change takes place.
Conversely, if you are a more conservative thinker, then you may feel that the founding fathers, though they lived in a different time, knew that they were offering a guideline to a better life for all, then and in the future. Regardless of how they spoke it or wrote it, you can get the drift of what they were trying to accomplish for the people, not the government. A person who has a conservative mindset may understand that there is a lot more at stake than the right to own firearms or protected speech, but those are two things that if lost, would give the government full power over the people. The same thing that happened to Russia, China, Germany, and other repressive countries /regimes in the past. If you think conservatively, then you might cherish what America stands for and how that came to be. It was not by constant change to be like the rest of the world but rather by sticking to a plan that was established by a people that had experienced repression from a government and chose to do something about it.
So pick a side, one that best represents your own mindset, and campaign and vote for the ones who will shape the future to meet your ideals.
It could be a long and hard process but it takes us as citizens to promote and accomplish it.

Ah, yes. It's all because of Liberals. Ironically, it was Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Republicans, who when governor of California, who signed the law banning concealed carry. He also signed the first assault weapon. Here is a little history to ponder.

Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.

The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision — banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians — that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks — very plausibly — to Ronald Reagan.

I am just glad I got to live where and when I have so far, as George Purtill pointed out society changes over time. It seems to me that as a society loses it's morals it also loses it's rights as they walk hand in hand. So to paraphrase on old cliche, shoot 'em while you got 'em.

Also if you care about your right to own and enjoy a firearm, realize there is only so much you can do; choose where you live, write letters to the editor, donate a few bucks to the NRA. The rest is political theater.

Gentlemen,

The .pdf attachment is a long, well written document with references noted which identifies "How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution".

This gives more background than is commonalty known as to why a tyrannical British government of the time feared American colonists having access to firearms, especially those of local militias. That's right, organized local militias, not a national or even state guard force.

Go ahead, give this a good read and tell us what you think.

PS: Great job for most everyone on keeping this thread focused on the issue, not of politics. Yes, that is a difficult thing to do. Thanks all!

Mark

thanks Mark-

many people seem to have a hard time understanding when I try to tell them that the American revolution was a political ARGUMENT up until the point where the government embarked on a concerted mission to disarm the population, and that led the argument to become a shooting war

Yes, when British regulars fired into a group of dissenting colonists.






.

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

i guess I question the term 'literal interpretation" since i only see a single plain language meaning

but yes, based on the experience of the population at that time -can it mean any thing else?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

the text in its entirety


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html