Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California

[Fair&Balanced]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

"Keep and bear arms"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

horse be gone and barn door already shut on this one.

The SCOTUS has been known to overturn things. The first century after the 2nd amendment saw the SCOTUS agree with me. Its a pendulum.

No, SCOTUS never ruled that gun rights weren't to the individual citizen

 

[bendog]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

 

[martybegan]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

 

[martybegan]

These freaking morons, should all be impeached and replaced with random names from the Fresno phone book.

Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns | Fox News

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

 

[aris2chat]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

You ignorant fuck, the 2nd is an individual right , confirmed by SCOTUS time after time after time.

States have some right to control, but the 2nd is constitutional for all americans (except the mentally challenged, criminals in some cases and non citizens)

 

[martybegan]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

 

[bendog]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

Heller directly refuted the argument you're making.

You might be interested in Breyer's dissenting opinion which discussed regulations that states imposed on ownership of firearms, though
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Asclepias]

"Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”"

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

Actually it doesnt the way its structured. Congress has the sole right to define what the militia is. The state just has a right to have one based on that definition.

 

[bendog]

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

 

[martybegan]

Too bad Madison didnt put this in the 2nd amendment. As its contructed the 2nd amendment says only the miliita have a right to guns and the militia is currently determined to be the national guard by congress.

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

Actually it doesnt the way its structured. Congress has the sole right to define what the militia is. The state just has a right to have one based on that definition.

No, they don't. The States can define other militias, all congress controls is regulations for the National Guard, as they have a federal component to them.

 

[martybegan]

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

 

[aris2chat]

These freaking morons, should all be impeached and replaced with random names from the Fresno phone book.

Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns | Fox News

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

So, Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Montana , with their open carry, are the only states that are following The Constitution?
Alaska and Montana and Vermont

Many states allow you to have a gun in your car as long as it can be seen.

Carry is not the problem, it is the conceal. Some permits are $20 for five years, but each county has it's own regs.

 

[aris2chat]

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

Actually it doesnt the way its structured. Congress has the sole right to define what the militia is. The state just has a right to have one based on that definition.

No, they don't. The States can define other militias, all congress controls is regulations for the National Guard, as they have a federal component to them.

Guard is state, reserves are federal

 

[Asclepias]

Again, the people have a right to guns, the States have the right to a militia.

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

Actually it doesnt the way its structured. Congress has the sole right to define what the militia is. The state just has a right to have one based on that definition.

No, they don't. The States can define other militias, all congress controls is regulations for the National Guard, as they have a federal component to them.

Sorry guy. The constitution clearly states this.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[aris2chat]

These freaking morons, should all be impeached and replaced with random names from the Fresno phone book.

Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns | Fox News

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

 

[Contumacious]

Question for conservatives subscribing to this thread:

Why do you continue to lie about the ruling when there is a link to the actual ruling in this very thread, a ruling that acknowledges the fact that California residents do indeed lawfully carry concealed firearms, and that the ruling is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, where neither Heller/McDonald nor its subsequent case law has held that there is a right to carry a concealed firearm.

One is at liberty to take issue with the provision of California concealed carry law as to ‘good cause’ being a condition upon which a license is issued, but the court’s upholding of the condition is not in conflict with the Second Amendment given the fact the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

Last, we once again see the hypocrisy common to most on the right, where their unwarranted hostility toward the ruling exhibits conservatives’ advocacy of ‘judicial activism,’ wishing to see ‘tyrants in black robes’ ignore the ‘will of the people’ and seeking to ‘legislate from the bench’ by striking down the ‘good cause’ provision.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways: if it’s the ‘will of the people’ to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, then it’s likewise the ‘will of the people’ that one must show ‘good cause’ to carry a concealed firearm, where the Ninth Circuit has done exactly as conservatives have demanded of the judiciary: respect “states’ rights” and the ‘will of the people’ and leave their laws in place.

Such is the hypocrisy of the right.

Question for socialists/fascists subscribing to this thread:

Why do you continue to lie about the ruling when there is HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that the 2A does NOT confer regulatory authority over the right to bear arms

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights"

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 84


.ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE UNALIENABLE , ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEAL FIREARMS IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES......ALL AMERICANS


DO NOT LET POLITICIANS IN BLACK ROBES DISARM US


.

 

[bendog]

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

 

[Contumacious]

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

Question for socialists/fascists subscribing to this thread:

Why do you continue to lie about the ruling when there is HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that the 2A does NOT confer regulatory authority over the right to bear arms

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights"

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 84


.ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE UNALIENABLE , ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CARRY CONCEAL FIREARMS IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEIR LIVES......ALL AMERICANS


DO NOT LET POLITICIANS IN BLACK ROBES DISARM US

 

[BluesLegend]

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

The right to keep and bare arms is not up to the states.

 

[martybegan]

hmmmm. A state doesn't have a right to a milita. The state has no right. The power to raise a militia was ceded by the states in the post WWII national guard scheme.

But we can buy and keep guns.

The second amendment says its the states right. Of course they have to follow congress and they have decided the national guard is the militia.

The amendment overrides congress.

Actually it doesnt the way its structured. Congress has the sole right to define what the militia is. The state just has a right to have one based on that definition.

No, they don't. The States can define other militias, all congress controls is regulations for the National Guard, as they have a federal component to them.

Guard is state, reserves are federal

The guard can still be nationalized, and the governors don't have much of a say about it.