California's New CC Ruling

[Kensal Rise]

Lest we forget...

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-- Rev. Martin Niemoller

OR, at the moment:

First they came for the AR-15s, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an AR-15.

Then they came for the all the Assault Rifles, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own an Assault Rifle.

Then they came for ALL the semi-autos, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own a semi-auto.

Then they came for my Parker—and there was no one left to speak for me.


It is worth noting that in Nazi Germany, as in many other totalitarian states, the rights, property and lives of citizens were taken with the acquiescence, complicity and/or full cooperation of politicians, courts, judges, lawyers, police - and unquestioning military leaders and personnel. Thus, the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the concept of an "illegal order."

[Jeff Higgins]

I agree God never said I could own a gun. But I don't believe he ever said I couldn't own one either. I will use Ct. as a example of how a wedge was driven between the self defense type of gun owner and the Hunter/ collector types. The Hunter/ collector types did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the self defense types. You would hear them make comments about ugly Assault rifles. How they would not own such a thing, you don't need one for hunting or you don't need a mag that holds more than X amount for Hunting. Basically looking down their noses at those types of firearms and those type of firearm owners. It did not affect their firearm hobby so they did not care. So laws were passed. Well guess what. I lost count of how many guys walked into the store to buy a new shotgun to hunt or shoot clays with and were shocked to find out they can't without a permit. What do you mean I can't buy one anymore with my hunting license or a two week wait? I thought that was just for those ugly assault rifles! Or the guys who came in the Friday before opening day to pick up ammo to find out they can't buy it without a permit. My favorite was the 30 year retired FBI agent that could not buy ammo because he did not have a permit. I really felt bad for the guys that lost out on firearms for Christmas or birthday presents because their wives or relatives had no way to purchase them. I remember another guy that has a really extensive Browning Hi-Power collection, he wasn't to happy about 10 round mags only. I don't fish much anymore but I will defend your right to do so because my kids and grandkids like to.

[G. Wells]

Following is a discussion from Reason.org, the Libertarian website which is definitely pro gun and I think addresses many of the comments on this forum:




"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Another appeals court has reached a somewhat different conclusion, and the question is bound eventually to demand the attention of the Supreme Court.

On the general topic of gun rights, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump strongly differ. He got the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, and she won the support of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He calls her "the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office." She favors new restrictions she describes as "common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."

What makes the debate so important is that the basic meaning of the amendment is still being figured out. The Supreme Court has found it guarantees an individual right to own a gun for self-defense—as distinct from a collective right to bear arms in a state militia. But the justices have not ruled on the constitutionality of a variety of regulations.

One of those is California's policy on carrying concealed guns in public. It allows only those with permits to do so and is stingy in giving them out. Anyone who wants a license has to convince the county sheriff she has "good cause" for it. Among the reasons that don't qualify are "self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)."

A lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the law. But on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it, saying, "There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The odd part was its admission that the Constitution may protect the right of citizens to carry guns openly. California doesn't allow that, either, but the open-carry ban, the court said, was not challenged in this case.

Its verdict diverges from a 2012 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which struck down Illinois' near-total ban on concealed carry. "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense" recognized by the Supreme Court, that court concluded. "A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to decide who's right. How it would have ruled in Antonin Scalia's day was hardly certain. But its Second Amendment opinions imply that the Second Amendment prerogative to employ a gun for personal protection extends beyond one's front door.

In 2008, the court listed various restrictions it considered permissible: "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." The list's omission of laws against carrying guns in public was conspicuous.

The justices found that many 19th-century courts allowed states to forbid carrying concealed weapons—while noting that some struck down laws against carrying guns openly. But the right to "bear arms" doesn't sound as though you are entitled just to sleep with a pistol on your nightstand.

If the right to self-defense applies beyond the home, states can hardly forbid law-abiding citizens to venture out in public without the means to protect themselves. A dissenting judge in the California case reached the sensible conclusion: States may ban concealed carry or open carry but not both.

The two landmark Second Amendment cases were decided by 5-4 votes, with Scalia in the majority. Without him, the eight remaining justices might be evenly divided on concealed-carry bans. So the next person to join the court could ultimately cast the deciding vote.

As a general, practical rule, it may not matter much how the Supreme Court finally rules on this question. Most states enacted permissive concealed-carry laws on their own and would keep them regardless.

But it matters in principle, and in some states—like Illinois and California—it matters in practice. To a voting public that includes nearly 13 million people with concealed-carry permits, it will certainly matter on Election Day.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Setter Man]

Thats really the nut of it: if you have a constitutional right to carry openly then do you have a constitutional right to carry concealed which is an interesting question and one that probably should be decided by the SCOTUS. I do think there needs to be uniformity throughout the states. I have a permit to carry concealed in MI and there is reciprocity with many states but I have to check with other states before I can carry elsewhere.

[Setter Man]

Question: I think it is pretty safe to say that regardless how you interpret the 2nd A there are people who for one reason or another should not be carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise. Reasons that go beyond the standard prohabitions against purchasing a firearm. (I wouldn't trust half the people in my CPL class with a pair of sissors let alone a handgun). How do you prevent those people from carrying a firearm?

[Jim DiSpagno]

Look up the definitions of both "assist" and " weapon". After you understand their meanings, put the words together and you can make the case that the use of any inanimate object used in the commission of an attack on another human would be an "assault weapon". So let's drop the misnomer applied to firearms that just look like something made for military or law enforcement use and properly call them by name.

[10 bore]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

As far as "they" are concerned, we can hang together or we can hang separately... but hang we all will if "they" have their way.

I say we stick together - what say you?





.

we are in the pot of water , they are slowly turning up the heat, before you know it, we are cooked! with you Dean, stick together!

[stumpstalker]

However subject to personal interpretation, historical context, etc., the document preponderantly imposes limitations on government, relative to the individual, and not the other way around.

We have the law largely on our side; the political culture is another matter.

Take a non-shooter -- better yet, his whole family -- shooting.
____________________________
THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Bruce Day]

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

"Well regulated" is not defined in the acts of Congress that I know of.

[Bruce Day]

And by virtue of being in the Militia of the United States, the Constitution , see below, provides for organizing , arming , and disciplining the Militia , see further below.