2nd amendment case probably headed to SC

[Doc1]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

The mythology that americans will be free from an over reaching gubment on accounta we gots guns is fiction son; you're THE most incarcerated and surveilled population in the history of the planet. Your ISP providers sell your browsing histories, your "employer" can now demand your bloodwork for access to their "healthcare" plan, and legislation is in the works to expand that to them being able to demand your genetic profile; all of which can be traded and sold amongst the substantial people. Soon "employers" will access all of that information during the "background" check of job applicants. Americans lack the nads to stand up to this, with or without guns.

You still pissed that we beat your asses two centuries back? C'mon man, get over it.

Oh I was born and raised here padnah, as amurkan as you are. I've had over 6 decades to study this bullshit and the divide between the lofty corporate state rhetoric versus the objective reality on the ground for "the people" who are nothing but commodites and packets of information for the substantial people to trade upon and exploit. Your system is just as authoritarian as any out there.

Of course it is, but we have guns. I am not an inhabitant of the false Dem/Pub paradigm.
In fact I am an ardent enemy of the NWO/MIC/Deep State people.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

The mythology that americans will be free from an over reaching gubment on accounta we gots guns is fiction son; you're THE most incarcerated and surveilled population in the history of the planet. Your ISP providers sell your browsing histories, your "employer" can now demand your bloodwork for access to their "healthcare" plan, and legislation is in the works to expand that to them being able to demand your genetic profile; all of which can be traded and sold amongst the substantial people. Soon "employers" will access all of that information during the "background" check of job applicants. Americans lack the nads to stand up to this, with or without guns.

You still pissed that we beat your asses two centuries back? C'mon man, get over it.

Oh I was born and raised here padnah, as amurkan as you are. I've had over 6 decades to study this bullshit and the divide between the lofty corporate state rhetoric versus the objective reality on the ground for "the people" who are nothing but commodites and packets of information for the substantial people to trade upon and exploit. Your system is just as authoritarian as any out there.

Of course it is, but we have guns. I am not an inhabitant of the false Dem/Pub paradigm.
In fact I am an ardent enemy of the NWO/MIC/Deep State people.

Ah yes, we have guns; the fetish symbols of the freedoms and protections we lost, bipartisanly, while we sat on our asses in front of our televisions doing nothing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

Well regulated militia do not need to carry concealed weapons. Why do gun lovers?

That being said; Persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Thus, concealed carry should only be denied and disparaged, for cause.

This may have the effect of challenging open carry as well. The Peoples Republic of California has outlawed the right to bear arms in any manner, by outlawing both open and concealed carry.

Thank god that Gorsuch is on the court. This was why it was vital to elect Trump.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

The last time faith was put on a judge oppointed to the SC by a republican he turned out to be a dud. That would be John Roberts. I'll believe it when I see it.

Roberts voted in defense of the second on Heller, and in defense of the first in CU. Despite his ruling on Obama's fascist care, Roberts is FAR from a "dud."

 

[danielpalos]

Scum McConnel works for the NRA, not the people ~ The NRA funds his worthless campaign

Why doesn't he just stay in the Fuc= Kentucky and stay the Fuc+ out of California..

I hate that crocked ass man

Way too much hate going on there sparky.

I hate McConnell too but the NRA is a great organization and I will continue to support it.

I think open areas with ranches and cowboys you would expect to see people carry guns..

But in the cities, it is not ok..like I said we have way too much road rage going on with the extreme high expense and traffic...

There are also some really dumb mistakes from people who do not know how to drive here.. Not ok for McConnel or the NRA to push their agenda on us..

You think road rage only happens in the big cities?

No, it only happens in small towns, because there are more guns per capita in Chicago, and Persons are more polite, as a result.

 

[danielpalos]

Scum McConnel works for the NRA, not the people ~ The NRA funds his worthless campaign

Why doesn't he just stay in the Fuc= Kentucky and stay the Fuc+ out of California..

I hate that crocked ass man

Way too much hate going on there sparky.

I hate McConnell too but the NRA is a great organization and I will continue to support it.

I think open areas with ranches and cowboys you would expect to see people carry guns..

But in the cities, it is not ok..like I said we have way too much road rage going on with the extreme high expense and traffic...

There are also some really dumb mistakes from people who do not know how to drive here.. Not ok for McConnel or the NRA to push their agenda on us..

You think road rage only happens in the big cities?

I have been to the Midwest for a month last fall... it is a different world . People actually let you in or pass them..
Much different world out here in the Bay area

It is like going from a digital watch, to a sundial.

 

[bendog]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

I don't know why any conservative would want the same carry laws applicable in places as distinct as rural Wyoming or Texas and LA or NYC

 

[bendog]

Scum McConnel works for the NRA, not the people ~ The NRA funds his worthless campaign

Why doesn't he just stay in the Fuc= Kentucky and stay the Fuc+ out of California..

I hate that crocked ass man

Way too much hate going on there sparky.

I hate McConnell too but the NRA is a great organization and I will continue to support it.

I think open areas with ranches and cowboys you would expect to see people carry guns..

But in the cities, it is not ok..like I said we have way too much road rage going on with the extreme high expense and traffic...

There are also some really dumb mistakes from people who do not know how to drive here.. Not ok for McConnel or the NRA to push their agenda on us..

You think road rage only happens in the big cities?

No, it only happens in small towns, because there are more guns per capita in Chicago, and Persons are more polite, as a result.

Hell in Wyoming you're in shock if there are more cars than sheep on a road.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II.

When a liberal cannot defend his own agenda (happens a lot), they often use flat lies instead, and hope they can get someone to believe them anyway. This is a clear example.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't mean only major bans. It means even little restrictions are forbidden. Such as requiring all weapons be visible.

This is protected by the 2nd amendment so that a criminal contemplating a shooting, mugging, rape etc., will know that some law-abiding person in the crowd is probably carrying a gun, and he won't know who or where. It's the most effective deterrent known to man.

Liberals have never explained why they want to take away such a useful deterrent to crime. But it was obviously intended by the people who wrote the 2nd.

BTW, keep in mind that even before the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, it was already illegal for the Fed govt to restrict or ban firearms, including banning concealed carry. The Fed govt had NO powers at all, until the Constitution gave them to it. And it contains no mention of any power to restrict or ban weapons in any way - something that remains true to this day.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. Militia laws already exist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

Fail.

I am curious. Why do you care about how I carry my gun? Would you feel better if it was strapped to my thigh in plain sight? If so, why?

What's the FAIL? I could give a damn where your carry your weapon on your person as long as it's within the boundary of existing law, shit for brains. You're assuming too fucking much, hot shot! I do care about the rule of law, though!!!!

Can you cite precisely WHERE in Amendment II the right to carry concealed exists? Didn't fucking think so! I can cite from Heller EXACTLY where the very conservative Justice Scalia wrote that there were limits to the extent of Amendment II.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~

So would Scalia, the champion of the RW, poorly hung, gun nut set, now be a gun grabber, too, if he were still alive? Damn but your faction is so fucking infantile when it comes to the symbols of your perceived collective manhood. If the 2A is mentioned, whine like little bitches, you will!

Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.

Are you really that fucking stupid or are you just playing at it. I don't want to waste my time with either type of fool!

Heller, building upon the precedents in US v. Miller set the legal principle that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." You don't like that LEGALLY BINDING PRINCIPLE, tough fucking shit and go pound sand, asshole! That's the guiding principle of the law of the land. If the law in San Diego limits concealed carry to specifics needs, it's the LAW THERE and likely meets the legal test, which is very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS!

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.

If you weren't such a miserably offensive, ignorant piece of crap, you may not have need of a weapon to defend yourself, ya fucking jerk! Now go about thy way and haveth carnal relations with thyself!

You spin master fuck, heller was all about the right to own a fucking gun for self defense with out being in the military or police force you dumb asshole.


Remember you fucks kept confusing miltia with military, so Heller set the fucking record straight.....



That 9th circuit court case will go to the supreme Court and you will fucking lose...so suck it clown



.

 

[danielpalos]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

Well regulated militia do not need to carry concealed weapons. Why do gun lovers?

That being said; Persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Thus, concealed carry should only be denied and disparaged, for cause.

This may have the effect of challenging open carry as well. The Peoples Republic of California has outlawed the right to bear arms in any manner, by outlawing both open and concealed carry.

Thank god that Gorsuch is on the court. This was why it was vital to elect Trump.

More right wing propaganda?

California has state preemption for many, but not all, firearms laws. Actual enforcement of California's firearms laws also varies widely across the state. Urban areas, such as the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas strictly enforce firearms laws, and some communities within these areas have passed local ordinances that make legally owning a firearm difficult. Meanwhile, some rural jurisdictions narrowly enforce the same firearms laws by prosecuting only those who demonstrate malicious intent, or not enforcing portions of the state's firearms laws at all. State law enforcement agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Justice, and the California Department of Fish and Game strictly enforce state firearms law everywhere in California.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

 

[2aguy]

Scum McConnel works for the NRA, not the people ~ The NRA funds his worthless campaign

Why doesn't he just stay in the Fuc= Kentucky and stay the Fuc+ out of California..

I hate that crocked ass man

Way too much hate going on there sparky.

I hate McConnell too but the NRA is a great organization and I will continue to support it.

I think open areas with ranches and cowboys you would expect to see people carry guns..

But in the cities, it is not ok..like I said we have way too much road rage going on with the extreme high expense and traffic...

There are also some really dumb mistakes from people who do not know how to drive here.. Not ok for McConnel or the NRA to push their agenda on us..

You think road rage only happens in the big cities?

No, it only happens in small towns, because there are more guns per capita in Chicago, and Persons are more polite, as a result.

Moron....we have gangs having shootouts on the freeways here in Chicago.......and they can't legally buy, own or carry guns, let alone shoot them at other people driving down the freeway....moron.

 

[2aguy]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

I don't know why any conservative would want the same carry laws applicable in places as distinct as rural Wyoming or Texas and LA or NYC

Because there are criminals in all of those places.....

 

[bendog]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

I don't know why any conservative would want the same carry laws applicable in places as distinct as rural Wyoming or Texas and LA or NYC

Because there are criminals in all of those places.....

And there's little violent crime per capita in NYC as compared to southside chi.

Conservatism is about LETTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES RUN THEIR COMMUNTIES AS THE WANT

jfc, it's like you guys never studied any civics.

 

[2aguy]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

Fail.

I am curious. Why do you care about how I carry my gun? Would you feel better if it was strapped to my thigh in plain sight? If so, why?

What's the FAIL? I could give a damn where your carry your weapon on your person as long as it's within the boundary of existing law, shit for brains. You're assuming too fucking much, hot shot! I do care about the rule of law, though!!!!

Can you cite precisely WHERE in Amendment II the right to carry concealed exists? Didn't fucking think so! I can cite from Heller EXACTLY where the very conservative Justice Scalia wrote that there were limits to the extent of Amendment II.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~

So would Scalia, the champion of the RW, poorly hung, gun nut set, now be a gun grabber, too, if he were still alive? Damn but your faction is so fucking infantile when it comes to the symbols of your perceived collective manhood. If the 2A is mentioned, whine like little bitches, you will!

Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.

Are you really that fucking stupid or are you just playing at it. I don't want to waste my time with either type of fool!

Heller, building upon the precedents in US v. Miller set the legal principle that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." You don't like that LEGALLY BINDING PRINCIPLE, tough fucking shit and go pound sand, asshole! That's the guiding principle of the law of the land. If the law in San Diego limits concealed carry to specifics needs, it's the LAW THERE and likely meets the legal test, which is very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS!

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.

If you weren't such a miserably offensive, ignorant piece of crap, you may not have need of a weapon to defend yourself, ya fucking jerk! Now go about thy way and haveth carnal relations with thyself!

The Problem....moron....is that California prohibits open carry as well.....and with a concealed carry prohibition they make it impossible for people to exercise their right to carry a weapon for self defense........one or the other, they can't block both....


....I know you assholes see that one line from Heller and you think that allows you to ban every single gun in every place except for the broom closet in your home...and you think that covers the 2nd Amendment....but you have to read the entire heller decision...where they document carrying guns in your pocket.......moron...

From the actual Heller decision, twit...

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

-----

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

----

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

-----

p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”

-------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

P.58

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------

 

[2aguy]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

I don't know why any conservative would want the same carry laws applicable in places as distinct as rural Wyoming or Texas and LA or NYC

Because there are criminals in all of those places.....

And there's little violent crime per capita in NYC as compared to southside chi.

Conservatism is about LETTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES RUN THEIR COMMUNTIES AS THE WANT

jfc, it's like you guys never studied any civics.

There is crime....and we have the Right to carry a gun for self defense........you don't understand the Bill of Rights...

 

[2aguy]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

Fail.

I am curious. Why do you care about how I carry my gun? Would you feel better if it was strapped to my thigh in plain sight? If so, why?

What's the FAIL? I could give a damn where your carry your weapon on your person as long as it's within the boundary of existing law, shit for brains. You're assuming too fucking much, hot shot! I do care about the rule of law, though!!!!

Can you cite precisely WHERE in Amendment II the right to carry concealed exists? Didn't fucking think so! I can cite from Heller EXACTLY where the very conservative Justice Scalia wrote that there were limits to the extent of Amendment II.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~

So would Scalia, the champion of the RW, poorly hung, gun nut set, now be a gun grabber, too, if he were still alive? Damn but your faction is so fucking infantile when it comes to the symbols of your perceived collective manhood. If the 2A is mentioned, whine like little bitches, you will!

You need to read Heller asswipe...and not just that one sentence........you are wrong....as usual...

 

[2aguy]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

I don't know why any conservative would want the same carry laws applicable in places as distinct as rural Wyoming or Texas and LA or NYC

Because there are criminals in all of those places.....

And there's little violent crime per capita in NYC as compared to southside chi.

Conservatism is about LETTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES RUN THEIR COMMUNTIES AS THE WANT

jfc, it's like you guys never studied any civics.

No...they don't get to violate basic rights with laws they create...that is why the democrats were told to stuff it, when they used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...all local laws...all unconstitutional.......moron.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

there is nothing prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons either

keep and bear

own and carry

what does it matter if I carry under my coat or not?

 

[2aguy]

Also from Heller.......citing Justice Ginsburg in an earlier decision....notice how she addresses carrying a gun.......

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I