Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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?
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 NYCSecond 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.
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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!!!!Fail.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.
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?
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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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.
You should read DC v. Heller to discover what it actually says, shit for brains. What I quoted to another is now legal precedent, so go suck on your barrel and pull the trigger if you can't endure reality, you dumb fuck!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.
Militia and military have nothing to do with the case in San Diego, IDIOT! It's about conceal carry you bloody fool! Here is the pertinent statement Scalia wrote pertaining to the CONCEAL CARRY issue the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is NOW A BINDING LEGAL PRINCIPLE that would be considered IF SCOTUS were to grant certiorari, which is very doubtful given the facts of the case and the case load of the Supremes;Remember you fucks kept confusing miltia with military, so Heller set the fucking record straight.....
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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.26 ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~
Again, probably will never happen because there is less than one in a 1000 chance that they'll even grant certiorari, but if it did happen, the legal principle of stare decisis would be most overwhelmingly followed and the precedent cited directly above would guide the decision, shit for brains!That 9th circuit court case will go to the supreme Court and you will fucking lose...so suck it clown.
More right wing propaganda?Well regulated militia do not need to carry concealed weapons. Why do gun lovers?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.
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.
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
[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.
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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!!!!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?
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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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.You should read DC v. Heller to discover what it actually says, shit for brains. What I quoted to another is now legal precedent, so go suck on your barrel and pull the trigger if you can't endure reality, you dumb fuck!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.
Militia and military have nothing to do with the case in San Diego, IDIOT! It's about conceal carry you bloody fool! Here is the pertinent statement Scalia wrote pertaining to the CONCEAL CARRY issue the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is NOW A BINDING LEGAL PRINCIPLE that would be considered IF SCOTUS were to grant certiorari, which is very doubtful given the facts of the case and the case load of the Supremes;Remember you fucks kept confusing miltia with military, so Heller set the fucking record straight.....
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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.26 ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~
Are you capable of finding someone who can explain that to you very, very slowly and carefully, Bubba?
Again, probably will never happen because there is less than one in a 1000 chance that they'll even grant certiorari, but if it did happen, the legal principle of stare decisis would be most overwhelmingly followed and the precedent cited directly above would guide the decision, shit for brains!That 9th circuit court case will go to the supreme Court and you will fucking lose...so suck it clown.
Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!!!!Fail.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.
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?
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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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”).
------------
This characterization is for you, Bubba!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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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.You should read DC v. Heller to discover what it actually says, shit for brains. What I quoted to another is now legal precedent, so go suck on your barrel and pull the trigger if you can't endure reality, you dumb fuck!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.
Militia and military have nothing to do with the case in San Diego, IDIOT! It's about conceal carry you bloody fool! Here is the pertinent statement Scalia wrote pertaining to the CONCEAL CARRY issue the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is NOW A BINDING LEGAL PRINCIPLE that would be considered IF SCOTUS were to grant certiorari, which is very doubtful given the facts of the case and the case load of the Supremes;Remember you fucks kept confusing miltia with military, so Heller set the fucking record straight.....
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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.26 ~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~
Are you capable of finding someone who can explain that to you very, very slowly and carefully, Bubba?
Again, probably will never happen because there is less than one in a 1000 chance that they'll even grant certiorari, but if it did happen, the legal principle of stare decisis would be most overwhelmingly followed and the precedent cited directly above would guide the decision, shit for brains!That 9th circuit court case will go to the supreme Court and you will fucking lose...so suck it clown.
Bullshit spin master, helller was a right to own a fucking gun for self defense.. You dumb retard.
It clarified all you silly liberal whinney ass nonsence.
The 9th circus court case will clarify the right to own a fucking gun in public.
It's going to the supreme Court and you will lose.
.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.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?
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, for the Union. So what if "low cost of living" areas have a mini-micro boom.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 NYCSecond 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.
Then why do the left want the same minimum wage laws from.low cost of living to High?
.
Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!!!!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?
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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?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!
Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Why are you left wingers so stupid?
You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......
--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...
--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...
you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?
IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!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.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Why are you left wingers so stupid?
You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......
--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...
--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...
you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "
So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!
You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too fucking bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!
So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.
Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!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.
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!
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!Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Why are you left wingers so stupid?
You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......
--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...
--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...
you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "
So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!
You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too fucking bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!
So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.
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.
You STUPID, STUPID, INEPT, FECKLESS DIMWIT!Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Why are you left wingers so stupid?
You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......
--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...
--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...
you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "
So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!
You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too fucking bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!
So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.
Dumb shit....he actually goes into what he meant......
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.
--------------
So...dumb shit......felons....the dangerously mentally ill.......pretty fucking specific about the kind of limitations he means....and even the point about concealed carry isn't even relevant today, since in the past the courts were concerned about criminals carrying guns hidden.....but since criminals already do this.......it makes that point a nonsense point....
The limitations he is pointing to have nothing to do with law abiding people carrying guns for self defense.....as he states when he refers to Felons...and the dangerously mentally ill....
he doesn't say that normal people can be limited...asswipe......and he doesn't say they can't carry guns...only that in the past concealed carry was upheld....but not open carry...as all of my qoutes from the Heller decision show....
So you left winger who think that one line will allow you to ban every single gun in existence...except for one, one shot, .22 that you will allow to be kept locked in a safe, inside another safe, inside a locked basement......with only the police having the key to your basement door.....is bullshit.......
Felons and the mentally ill.....pretty specific, moron.....
Now your "version";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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.26
You edited the fuck out of the paragraph for some idiotic reason and wound up plagiarizing it, but to what end? Now you're agreeing with me that there are lawful and Constitutional limitations on Amendment II? You've a very serious problem be so bloody confused, Bubba!Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.
You're a damn idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, and refuses to listen or to read facts objectively. It truly must suck to be you!Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.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!
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”).
------------
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.
Have a nice day, Bubba!
Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
Why are you left wingers so stupid?
You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......
--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...
--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...
you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "
So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!
You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too fucking bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!
So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.
And any of the past decisons that went against concealed carry are unConstitutional....and should be struck down...but according to Heller....open carry....constitutional carry are all fine....you twit....
