Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California

[bendog]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

But Madigan also said the State could limit the right.

Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the *941 mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783), some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb.2007, p. 30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904. pdf (visited Oct. 29, 2012). States also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises. If enough private institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no inherent implication that any and all arms anytime and anywhere may be born in any old way.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually it does say that if you can read.

Unless you are not a people then no it doesn't.

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

BS, it says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia. You are just down right lying, you can't be that illiterate.

Its the right of the people in the militia. Thats why its not stated in a separate sentence.

Gosh you are illiterate. In order to form a militia, the people have to have guns. As usual, you have it ass backwards. You don't like the 2nd amendment, I got it. I don't like Roe vs Wade. The difference is I don't lie about Roe vs Wade or make up what I want it to say.

The National guard is proof you dont know what you are talking about. The state supplies them guns. They dont bring their own.

 

[Freewill]

The wording:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Does it say the right of the militia or the right of the people? One would think that since that everyone can read how in the hell do they screw up something so simple?

Obviously since its not two separate sentences its the right of the people in the miltia. Basically its saying you have the right to be armed if you are in the militia.

In order to have a fire department, the right firemen to have trucks shall not be infringed.

It really isn't that hard.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

But Madigan also said the State could limit the right.

Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the *941 mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783), some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb.2007, p. 30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904. pdf (visited Oct. 29, 2012). States also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises. If enough private institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome

I know, isn't that hilarious. Private business can discriminate against people who carry guns, but they can't discriminate against gays. My God this country is so stupid.

 

[Freewill]

Unless you are not a people then no it doesn't.

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

BS, it says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia. You are just down right lying, you can't be that illiterate.

Its the right of the people in the militia. Thats why its not stated in a separate sentence.

Gosh you are illiterate. In order to form a militia, the people have to have guns. As usual, you have it ass backwards. You don't like the 2nd amendment, I got it. I don't like Roe vs Wade. The difference is I don't lie about Roe vs Wade or make up what I want it to say.

The National guard is proof you dont know what you are talking about. The state supplies them guns. They dont bring their own.

Are they a militia?

 

[Asclepias]

The wording:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Does it say the right of the militia or the right of the people? One would think that since that everyone can read how in the hell do they screw up something so simple?

Obviously since its not two separate sentences its the right of the people in the miltia. Basically its saying you have the right to be armed if you are in the militia.

In order to have a fire department, the right firemen to have trucks shall not be infringed.

It really isn't that hard.

Yeah but again the city/state is supplying the trucks not the firemen. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

BS, it says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia. You are just down right lying, you can't be that illiterate.

Its the right of the people in the militia. Thats why its not stated in a separate sentence.

Gosh you are illiterate. In order to form a militia, the people have to have guns. As usual, you have it ass backwards. You don't like the 2nd amendment, I got it. I don't like Roe vs Wade. The difference is I don't lie about Roe vs Wade or make up what I want it to say.

The National guard is proof you dont know what you are talking about. The state supplies them guns. They dont bring their own.

Are they a militia?

Yes. Didnt you see my post?

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

• The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
• Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[

 

[SwimExpert]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Even Scalia insisted that concealed carry was not protected by the 2nd amendment. In my view, one or the other must be allowed for compliance with the constitution. A state can prohibit one if the other is permitted. Of course, this is California we're talking about, so they'd outlaw super soakers if they had the chance.

 

[Asclepias]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Even Scalia insisted that concealed carry was not protected by the 2nd amendment. In my view, one or the other must be allowed for compliance with the constitution. A state can prohibit one if the other is permitted. Of course, this is California we're talking about, so they'd outlaw super soakers if they had the chance.

Legislator Proposes Ban On Super Water Pistols

 

[SwimExpert]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Even Scalia insisted that concealed carry was not protected by the 2nd amendment. In my view, one or the other must be allowed for compliance with the constitution. A state can prohibit one if the other is permitted. Of course, this is California we're talking about, so they'd outlaw super soakers if they had the chance.

Legislator Proposes Ban On Super Water Pistols

*facepalm*

Fucking idiots. But we keep re-electing them...

 

[bendog]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

But Madigan also said the State could limit the right.

Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the *941 mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783), some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb.2007, p. 30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904. pdf (visited Oct. 29, 2012). States also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises. If enough private institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome

I know, isn't that hilarious. Private business can discriminate against people who carry guns, but they can't discriminate against gays. My God this country is so stupid.

All a gay can do is kiss you (-:

Here in Miss, we have concealed and open carry. With legal and biz exceptions to each. I may go to a legal education class tomorrow on it. I don't really need it, because I covered it all before, but the inconsistencies are hilarious.

 

[2aguy]

The 9th circuit court of appeals stated today that the right to vote is not an absolute right...in fact, the citizen who wishes to vote will now need to go before the election board and show a positive reason why it is necessary for them to vote in the upcoming election. Simply being a citizen and having the Right to vote is no longer enough to justify allowing all citizens the Right to exercise their vote....

Wait....what.....it wasn't voting.......it was the 2nd Amendment.....a citizen has to explain to government agents why they are in dire need of the ability to carry a gun for self defense...even though the 2nd Amendment says the Right shall not be infringed?

Never mind...I guess some Rights are not worth keeping....and just because the 2nd ensures all the rest....yeah....that won't be a problem for future generations...

 

[bendog]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Even Scalia insisted that concealed carry was not protected by the 2nd amendment. In my view, one or the other must be allowed for compliance with the constitution. A state can prohibit one if the other is permitted. Of course, this is California we're talking about, so they'd outlaw super soakers if they had the chance.

Legislator Proposes Ban On Super Water Pistols

*facepalm*

Fucking idiots. But we keep re-electing them...

Hey, you can put out somebody's eye with those things. (-:

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Much ado about nothing, it'll be overturned....but the anti gun loons had an orgasm

 

[Asclepias]

Please dont tell 2aguy. I think he will have a stroke if he hears about this.

 

[2aguy]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

That is that whole part about "bear arms" dipstick..........

 

[2aguy]

Please dont tell 2aguy. I think he will have a stroke if he hears about this.

I hear all....I know all....

 

[bendog]

Much ado about nothing, it'll be overturned....but the anti gun loons had an orgasm

Depends on the law. States can require training and licensing and restrict where carry is allowed. But it may well implicate NY's restrictive law.

 

[2aguy]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

Easy.....hilary appoints one more Supreme Court justice....that's how.