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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there's the part *bearing* arms, not just being allowed to have one.

It also doesn't say, to be fair, the right to hidden arms; bearing doesn't necessarily imply concealing.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there's the part *bearing* arms, not just being allowed to have one.

It also doesn't say, to be fair, the right to hidden arms; bearing doesn't necessarily imply concealing.

Right, I'd agree, but if they're gonna ban open carry, and are gonna turn "may issue" into "no issue" for the most part, then there's effectively no "bearing" allowed, and that was the line of thinking with the Peruta and DC concealed carry cases.

I don't think there is a constitutional right to concealed carry, but I think the argument could be made that there is one for open carry.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.

This is tired old bit of conservative whinging. Its based on the 9th Circuit having the most cases overturned... but misses that the 9th reviews vastly more cases than any other. This is because the 9th is really big, it covers 60 million people or about 20% of the US population. Of course it's going to be the most active circuit court, and therefore have the most cases appealed to the SC. The SC, in turn, is wary of having its case load dominated by the 9th, so it selects a disproportionately lower portion of cases from the 9th. So it focuses on the ones that the SC feels the need to overturn.

One could just as easily note the SC declines to review the 9th more often than any other circuit court, implying the SC agrees with the 9th's interpretation more than any other court. That would be a long stretch as well, of course.

Anyhow, once that factoid about a high number of overturned decisions gets in to the hands of people who like to lie for political gain, they spread the story that the 9th is miles out of step with the rest of the country. And then people who like to be lied to will buy that line, and add on a heaping dose of crazy, and end up with something really amazing. Something like...

The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.

Yep, there it is. Amazing, really.

 sebster wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.

This is tired old bit of conservative whinging. Its based on the 9th Circuit having the most cases overturned... but misses that the 9th reviews vastly more cases than any other. This is because the 9th is really big, it covers 60 million people or about 20% of the US population. Of course it's going to be the most active circuit court, and therefore have the most cases appealed to the SC. The SC, in turn, is wary of having its case load dominated by the 9th, so it selects a disproportionately lower portion of cases from the 9th. So it focuses on the ones that the SC feels the need to overturn.

One could just as easily note the SC declines to review the 9th more often than any other circuit court, implying the SC agrees with the 9th's interpretation more than any other court. That would be a long stretch as well, of course.

Anyhow, once that factoid about a high number of overturned decisions gets in to the hands of people who like to lie for political gain, they spread the story that the 9th is miles out of step with the rest of the country. And then people who like to be lied to will buy that line, and add on a heaping dose of crazy, and end up with something really amazing. Something like...

The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.

Yep, there it is. Amazing, really.

It may be amazing and a tired bit of "conservative whining" to you, an Australian. But the 9th Circuit's track record and history more than speaks for itself.


As an American, I know my court system's track record, especially the more infamous ones, better than you do. So, don't presume to lecture me on the matter. And keep your snarky comments directed toward me to yourself


The fact that the Supreme Court declines to review the 9th's ruling doesn't mean jack gak. The Supreme Court doesn't have to agree or disagree to refuse to review a lower court's rulings. They can (and have) refuse for any number of reasons. Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years. Not to mention, embarrass your self with baseless assumptions.

If all you can do is repeat the same point that was already addressed while adding "I'm American and you are not", then you are not really doing anything to actually counter anything he said.

If you make more rulings than other courts, then more rulings are likely to end up at the SCOTUS, and more rulings are likely to end up getting reversed.

It's not rocket science, and as far as I know Australia still does the same kind of math that we do.

I wasn't kidding with that general warning at the start. Everyone be polite.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It may be amazing and a tired bit of "conservative whining" to you, an Australian. But the 9th Circuit's track record and history more than speaks for itself.

As an American, I know my court system's track record...

But you don't. That's the point. As an American you might, theoretically, have more information on court processes readily available to you, but you've also got more misinformation being supplied. You bought in to the misinformation, and then came here not only repeating that misinformation but turning it up to 11 by calling for the 9th to be abolished*.

And keep your snarky comments directed toward me to yourself

Why is it always the fault of the person who says an argument is terrible, and never the fault of the person who made the terrible argument?

The fact that the Supreme Court declines to review the 9th's ruling doesn't mean jack gak. The Supreme Court doesn't have to agree or disagree to refuse to review a lower court's rulings. They can (and have) refuse for any number of reasons.

Sure, they reject for many reasons. But to then wander along pretending that you can measure the performance of that court by only the cases that do get reviewed is stupid.




*There are calls to have the 9th split, but not because it's so gosh durned liberal or anything like that, but because it's stupidly huge.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years.

I'm not sure that an appeal to authority works when it's a retired LEO/prison guard opining on the workings of the second highest court in the land. No snark intended, but you're so far outside your wheelhouse you have no grounds to call anyone else on their distance - it's like a clerk at Target complaining a clerk at Walmart has no right to opine about the decisions made in the Target boardroom.

As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:

The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.

To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.

And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

Concealed carry would probably mystify them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:

The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.

To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.

And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

Concealed carry would probably mystify them.

They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Concealed carry would probably mystify them.

John Adams: "Wait, if I carry this pistol with one hand, it's OK, but if I put a second grip in the front, it's illegal?"

George Washington: "Why would anyone want to use a pistol with two hands anyway? It just halves your killing power. If I had a penny for every time I shot a redcoat with my right hand while choking the life out of another with my left, I could pay off Ben's hooker tab".

Ben Franklin "I invented this stock for pistols that's OK. I mean, it's obviously totally a stock, but we'll call it a brace, wink wink."

George Washingon: "A left hand on a firearm is a left hand not shoving a sword into an Englishman."

- a totally true exchange

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"

Or why we decided that the part about a well regulated militia wasn't what they meant, for that matter.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a student of American history and politics, I've enjoyed reading about the history of the 2nd amendment, and one book I particularly enjoy is this:

The Second Amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. I would recommend to anybody with an interest in this subject.

To cut a long story short, Waldman makes the point that if modern Americans travelled back in time and asked the founders their rational for the 2nd, their answers would probably confuse the time travellers, and the questions would probably confuse the founders.

And I think this applies with this ruling. The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

Concealed carry would probably mystify them.

They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"

They would be doubly mystified by certain groups in America deliberately omitting the militia bit for their own interests


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Concealed carry would probably mystify them.

John Adams: "Wait, if I carry this pistol with one hand, it's OK, but if I put a second grip in the front, it's illegal?"

George Washington: "Why would anyone want to use a pistol with two hands anyway? It just halves your killing power. If I had a penny for every time I shot a redcoat with my right hand while choking the life out of another with my left, I could pay off Ben's hooker tab".

Ben Franklin "I invented this stock for pistols that's OK. I mean, it's obviously totally a stock, but we'll call it a brace, wink wink."

George Washingon: "A left hand on a firearm is a left hand not shoving a sword into an Englishman."

- a totally true exchange

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
They may be more mystified that people have trouble understanding the phrase "shall not be infringed"

Or why we decided that the part about a well regulated militia wasn't what they meant, for that matter.

You're overlooking that famous anecdote about James Madison being a passionate believer in the militia, until the Maryland militia ran off, and allowed the British army to burn down Mr Madison's house. Needless to say, Mr Madison wasn't too keen on militias after that

The point is this Ouze: the founders attitudes and worldview were vastly different to ours. It would be hard to gauge their true intent when drafting up any of the amendments.

100 years ago in Britain, men thought nothing of going over the top in WW1 and dying for their country. 100 years later, people in Britain struggle to understand why they did that. We respect and honour their sacrifice, but are mystified by their worldview.

It would be no different for comparing modern America to revolutionary America, in many respects.

9th Circuit, the most over-ruled circuit in the history of mankind. To quote THGTTG: First against the wall when the revolution comes.

 Frazzled wrote:
9th Circuit, the most over-ruled circuit in the history of mankind. To quote THGTTG: First against the wall when the revolution comes.

Oh hey, it's that point that's already been addressed numerous times in this thread.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.

The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
9th Circuit, the most over-ruled circuit in the history of mankind. To quote THGTTG: First against the wall when the revolution comes.

Oh hey, it's that point that's already been addressed numerous times in this thread.

Oh hey, like I care.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.

Otherwise it would seem that your point about naval weapons is irrelevant to the topic which concerns the issuing of permits to carry concealed handguns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.

No. I thought it was easy to understand, but evidently not.

The founders were okay with the most powerful weapons of the day being available to private citizens, so making the argument (as the post I replied to did; I'm sure you read it before jumping in) that they would somehow be against concealed pistols just because the average infantryman's primary weapon and sidearm were a musket and pistol, respectively, makes no sense. It's disingenuous to suggest they were only comfortable with relatively weak and inefficient single-shot firearms when they were, in fact, perfectly fine with Joe Citizen building himself a floating artillery battery.

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.

If we go by the spirit of the 2nd, then your average citizen should be able to keep nuclear weapons, as technically, these are 'arms.'

Of course, nobody objects about being denied the right to keep nuclear weapons in their back yard.

Cars are also potentially dangerous, but nobody objects to the requirement of a driving licence before operating a motor vehicle.

Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.

Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.

We'll see. I disagree, and this is why it's important to make sure we get even a faux-conservative nominating Supreme Court justices rather than someone in the Wise Latina fan club.

Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.

Could've said the same thing about Mississippi in the '60s, didn't mean they were right and constitutionally-observant.

Seaward wrote:

Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.

Could've said the same thing about Mississippi in the '60s, didn't mean they were right and constitutionally-observant.

So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?

You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Then I'm not sure what your point was. It seemed to be that the founders were OK with the most powerful weapons available in 1776 being held by civilians and therefore that civilians now should be able to hold weapons that are much more capable than the weapons of 1776.

No. I thought it was easy to understand, but evidently not.

The founders were okay with the most powerful weapons of the day being available to private citizens, so making the argument (as the post I replied to did; I'm sure you read it before jumping in) that they would somehow be against concealed pistols just because the average infantryman's primary weapon and sidearm were a musket and pistol, respectively, makes no sense. It's disingenuous to suggest they were only comfortable with relatively weak and inefficient single-shot firearms when they were, in fact, perfectly fine with Joe Citizen building himself a floating artillery battery.

That's a reasonable point, however it doesn't mean that they would definitely be okay with modern people owning and carrying modern weapons in an everyday civilian context.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?

There are certainly organized harassment campaigns against gun stores, sure. That's not news to anybody who's remotely conversant with the issue of guns in California.

Mississippi wasn't desegregated because voter harassment campaigns stopped, by the way. Mississippi was desegregated by federal order after segregation was declared unconstitutional. African-Americans were a minority who, even if they were unfettered, wouldn't have had the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would have been trampled even if the state had organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there were more people voting against them than otherwise. Gun owners in California are certainly a minority without the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would still be trampled even if the state organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there are more people voting against them than otherwise.

You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.

Nah, I think I'll keep doing it. The second amendment protects a civil right, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That's a reasonable point, however it doesn't mean that they would definitely be okay with modern people owning and carrying modern weapons in an everyday civilian context.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't, either. They've been dead for a long time, so it's pretty difficult to get their take on the matter.

If they were alive and didn't like it, though? They'd probably pat themselves on the back for putting in place a system to amend the Constitution.

 Ouze wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Read up some more on another country's system before you act like you are better versed in it than one of it's own citizens, especially one who has worked for that same system for a number of years.

I'm not sure that an appeal to authority works when it's a retired LEO/prison guard opining on the workings of the second highest court in the land. No snark intended, but you're so far outside your wheelhouse you have no grounds to call anyone else on their distance - it's like a clerk at Target complaining a clerk at Walmart has no right to opine about the decisions made in the Target boardroom.

A retired LEO/Corrections Officer with a MS in Criminal Justice, a BS in Criminal Justice, and an Associates in Applied Science, Criminal Justice Technology.


And a big part of that is Constitutional Law, understanding the court system in the United States on all levels of government (from Magistrates all the the United States Supreme Court), court rulings, application of court decisions, legal traditions, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, I'm not just some jackleg off of the streets that decided to go through BLET and become a cop for a paycheck, or some factory worker that went to work as a "prison guard" because he/she got layed off.


So, no. It's not an "appeal to authority" or me being "outside my wheelhouse". I have both the background, experience, AND education to back up my BS.


Anyway, I just got dinged for the earlier heated post in response to what I perceived as a snarky comment (admittedly without evidence) from sebester. So, with that, I'm going to gracefully bow out of this thread.

Let's pretend to be Mr Spock for a minute and engage in some Vulcan Logic

We're all familiar with this:

A well regulated Militia

Logically, what does a well regulated militia mean?

Well, there'd be age requirements - you wouldn't let a 5 year old carry a gun around.

Health and fitness requirements - a man with no hands wouldn't be able to hold a gun, you would want people to be reasonably fit for fighting, and of course, mentally ill people with certain conditions, probably wouldn't get in the militia either.

Most people would think the above to be reasonable, so already we've compromised on what a well regulated militia is.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

California is saying you can have a gun, just not a concealed gun, unless you have a permit. A reasonable compromise that takes in law enforcement concerns, IMO.

So, to conclude, most people would be happy to compromise on what a well regulated militia is, so why not compromise on this issue of concealed weapons on a state by state basis? There's wiggle room here and people's fundamental right to carry a gun, is not being stopped...

Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So gun owners in California are being intimidated from voting? There's organized campaigns of harassment and threats, if not kidnappings and murders against gun owners in California?

There are certainly organized harassment campaigns against gun stores, sure. That's not news to anybody who's remotely conversant with the issue of guns in California.

Okay, and? Organized harassment campaigns against gun stores is not equivalent to crap like the Birmingham bombing.

Mississippi wasn't desegregated because voter harassment campaigns stopped, by the way. Mississippi was desegregated by federal order after segregation was declared unconstitutional. African-Americans were a minority who, even if they were unfettered, wouldn't have had the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would have been trampled even if the state had organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there were more people voting against them than otherwise. Gun owners in California are certainly a minority without the voting power to change anything. Their constitutionally guaranteed rights would still be trampled even if the state organized voting drives specifically to turn them out, because there are more people voting against them than otherwise.

And a big part as to why there were more people voting against them than otherwise?
Organized voter suppression, organized harassment against African Americans who voted, organized harassment against whites who were against desegregating, etc.

So please. Get off the cross.

You really couldn't say the same thing about Mississippi in the 1960's, and stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry.

Nah, I think I'll keep doing it. The second amendment protects a civil right, too.

Never said the 2nd didn't protect a right.

I said stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry. You don't have anywhere near the case to make that comparison.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Okay, and? Organized harassment campaigns against gun stores is not equivalent to crap like the Birmingham bombing.

Which would be relevant if I had claimed that gun owners in California today have it as bad as African-Americans had it in Mississippi in the '60s. I instead compared the implication that because a majority of voters approved of something it must be both right and constitutional when it comes to California and guns with Mississippi and segregation, but you saw a strawman you couldn't resist building, and here we are.

And a big part as to why there were more people voting against them than otherwise?
Organized voter suppression, organized harassment against African Americans who voted, organized harassment against whites who were against desegregating, etc.

Sure.

The biggest part?

Demographics.

So please. Get off the cross.

But the facts and cogent arguments are up here.

Never said the 2nd didn't protect a right.

I said stop trying to compare the civil rights movement to being able to concealed carry. You don't have anywhere near the case to make that comparison.

And I, you might recall, said, "Nah." There's plenty of comparisons to be made.