Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Think Cali needs a do over on their CCW policy and process....make it more sensible...make it in phases....make it where its a state run process...and charge the individual CCW...no brainer....Cali gets the fee and half arse ensure the individual with a CCW not a butjob. Comes down to money

 Frazzled wrote:
Sir you have me on both counts. Game, set, match: Sebster.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Give him props for showing up though. Even if he got humiliated, at least he put his money where his mouth is.

(For the record, I have no idea who this guy is, nor do I care to.)

He gets the same props as the Jackass crew, although at least those guys admit what they're doing is trashy.

 djones520 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Grey, you're missing my question, it's not whether you have the right to bear arms, it's about the requirement to show a good reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Cheers

Andrew

I think your missing the point. The 2nd Amendment reads "bear arms". It does not read "bear arms after showing good cause".

I missed a response the first time round. I've tried typing a reply to this a few times, but each reply seems to come off as sarcastic or dismissive. I do not mean to be.

While the 2nd gives you the right to bear arms, where in the constitution does it actually define how you "bear arms"? As long as you have an open carry policy, I do not see any requirement there to allow a concealed carry policy. I can't see how requiring a reason for the second infringes on the first?

Cheers

Andrew

Analog

If federal law says alcohol content of beer is to be....Andrew your Aussie I think....40% ( ) but no requirement of the size of the beer..12 oz curls to 40 oz curls (if bigger I not be shocked) but all required labeling, warning, and packaging meets the law....well drinking is a privilige but we treat it as a "Right" because if beer gets outlawed....then its a no issue. Law and requirements are met.

Hip shooting here...pun not intended
2nd Amendment is a right
2nd Amendment is clarified by laws
CCW license falls under a requirement staying within the law as in what you need to do and pay to be entitled to CCW.

CCW does not give the individual a right to go "Billy the Kid" style. Use of force and escalation of force has to be justified.

Let's not hash this with Trayvon Martin or the "Loud Music" killing trial going on in FLA.


edit

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means. - See more at: https://www.teaparty.org/34511-34511/#sthash.LZrjEcRY.dpuf

SCOTUS took the right approach on this. They should not get into this Constitutional debate. They cannot change the Amendment at the "get go".

I can understand what you're saying here, and maybe I've misunderstood what was said earlier.

As I understood the earlier posts, some posters felt that the state requirement for a good reason to acquire a concealed carry permit was infringing on their rights to bear arms. Now, afaik the same state also had an open carry policy that did not require the same policy of justification.

I was trying to understand, since they could still carry arms, why they felt that the first was such a heavy burden on them?

Jihadin, right hemisphere, wrong side. Falkland Isles, where, for the right money, one can legally obtain a military spec Steyr Aug! But the wife won't let me.

Cheers

Andrew

This is potentially good news for New Jersey...

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/02/first_the_nra_now_19_states_sussex_county_mans_gun_carry_lawsuit_goes_national.html

I agree with her Andrew. Your justification of the weapon by gluing a SM Tech onto the stock does not make it a Thunder Cannon.....Little unfair to the CSM Lord to bellow commands with a rifle barrel literally in his grill vox

 AndrewC wrote:
I can understand what you're saying here, and maybe I've misunderstood what was said earlier.

As I understood the earlier posts, some posters felt that the state requirement for a good reason to acquire a concealed carry permit was infringing on their rights to bear arms. Now, afaik the same state also had an open carry policy that did not require the same policy of justification.

I was trying to understand, since they could still carry arms, why they felt that the first was such a heavy burden on them?

It is often felt, and with good reason, that where CCW requires a license, then licenses will be rejected for no good reason, as part of an overall drive to reduce the number of guns on the street.

Falkland Isles, where, for the right money, one can legally obtain a military spec Steyr Aug! But the wife won't let me.

Divorce appears the only sensible response.

AndrewC: As far as I know, California used to allow a limited form of open carry (the gun couldn't actually be loaded, but you could carry loaded magazines), but I think that is no longer the case.

I'm glad they're leaving the decision up to individual counties and jurisdictions. California is a very diverse state. Sweeping laws just don't work. Certainly, some jurisdictions will be reluctant to comply with the ruling, but it's good progress.

 sebster wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I can understand what you're saying here, and maybe I've misunderstood what was said earlier.

As I understood the earlier posts, some posters felt that the state requirement for a good reason to acquire a concealed carry permit was infringing on their rights to bear arms. Now, afaik the same state also had an open carry policy that did not require the same policy of justification.

I was trying to understand, since they could still carry arms, why they felt that the first was such a heavy burden on them?

It is often felt, and with good reason, that where CCW requires a license, then licenses will be rejected for no good reason, as part of an overall drive to reduce the number of guns on the street.

I think this is further complicated by having "may issue" and "shall issue" states.

Now, afaik the same state also had an open carry policy that did not require the same policy of justification.

You -WERE- able to carry openly. Unloaded. However, you were perfectly OK having a <Insert number> cell mag pouch on your other hip and not be in violation of the law. In other words, the worst possible situation for EVERYONE. Cops still get man-with-a-gun calls, carriers are carrying a gun that IS NOT loaded and in full view of anyone with bad intentions (Stupid in the extreme.), and the people who are freaked out about their neighbors having the dirty ol things get to see it and freak out (resulting in #1)...

Now this is banned. You can not carry openly in any condition. You are (Unless one of the more equal animals) almost certainly not getting a CHL. The ability of an issuing authority to basically say "I don't like your face, get out." that no one has bothered calling them on until recently has a lot to do with this. This is why Californians are pissed.

I hope they kick the living daylights out of the state of CA on this. I am of the mind that my not being a criminal is my carry permit, but if you are going to enter the mess at all, I think Texas has an extremely good model to base from...on the other hand California is one example of how to NOT do it.