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.
2016/06/10 15:24:15
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Mdlbuildr wrote: Delays by the Authorities to attain a permit to purchase a hand gun in NJ are both unlawful and unConstitutional.
I'd love to get that changed, but people have been working on that for years. Getting a CCW is virtually impossible in this State.
I think NJ is a really good example, along with NYC, of venues that have infringed on the right to the point of unconstitutionality. I think it's a matter of time before they are forced to lighten their restrictions, and I mean years, not decades.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/10 15:25:35
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/06/10 15:27:22
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
No, I agree, The second amendment is absolutely not without limit, and the NFA is a good example of that. I mean, it's a pretty stupid law in a lot of ways, but I think it's wholly constitutional. I hope it's updated at some point but I accept that it's wholly acceptable from a constitutional perspective.
I think we spent quite a bit of time in this thread dancing around agreeing with each other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 15:27:55
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/10 15:28:24
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?
Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.
If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.
So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Further, the comparison is on-topic since it illustrates the fact that there already are a bunch of regulations in place on what type of weapon you are and aren't allowed to own and what you're allowed to do with it. The argument that "it's unconstitutional!" hinges one one particular reading of the constitution while refusing to entertain the notion that both sides have a point.
EDIT: Isn't the "MANP" in MANPADS short for man-portable? How is that not a bearable weapon?
Again, we already have federal and state laws and regulations and a federal agency that regulates explosives. Some explosives are legal for commercial/industrial ownership and use and some explosives are legal for private ownership and use and others are not. Some types of artillery are legal and others are not. Those laws and regulations are already existing and have already been modified by additional legisation and court rulings over the years.
How do you think our current regulations on explosives relates to the county sherrifs in CA that aren't allowing law abiding citizens who have followed the proper legal requirements for obtaining concealed carry permits based upon those sherrifs' personal interpretation of ambiguous language in the pertinent CA law that is inconsistent with other CA county sherrifs?
The 9th Circuit has ruled that since concealed carry isn't explicitly included under the 2A then states can have concealed carry restrictions that effectively make it impossible to legally carry a firearm at all. That ruling seems inconsistent with the SCOTUS Heller ruling that prohibited DC from enforcing restrictions on gun ownership that made it impossible for legally owned guns to be used for self defense purposes.
The thread topic has nothing to do with land mines.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 15:31:00
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/06/10 15:32:34
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...
There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.
What's necessary and proper in 1816 will be completely different from what's necessary and proper in 1916, and of course 2016.
Point is this: gun control is a balance between giving and taking. Both sides will obviously have different ideas on the level of giving and taking, and that will evolve as the years pass. IMO, this California ruling is part of that giving and taking that has been going on since 1776.
It's not a CA ruling it's a 9th Circuit ruling so it applies to every state in the 9th circuit. That covers about 20% of the population of the US and for all those people the 9th Circuit has ruled that states can make concealed carry permits be as restrictive as they want even up to the point that it makes legal concealed carry impossible to do. For states in the 9th Circuit, like CA, that ban open carry, this ruling means that states can outlaw the ability of US citizens to "bear arms" which seemingly contradicts the 2A. That's not a compromise on regulation that's judicial approval for a state to negate a constitutional right.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 15:33:18
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
So far as the "landmines are offtopic" idea - I dunno, I mean, discussion "what the scope of what the second amendment should entail" seems to be a natural part of any discussion about to "a decision about the 9th circuit picking a position on the scope of the 2nd amendment".
I mean, obviously, this thread is going to turn into an open sewer, and probably soon, because it always does. However I don't think what we're talking about right now is really off-topic to the OP. Just my 2 cents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 15:34:15
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/10 15:36:10
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
This is what confuses the hell out of me about the USA and Federal systems.
One state has this law, one state has that law, and another state has another law on the 2nd...
I can see why you have SCOTUS
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/06/10 15:41:31
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
No, California penal code PC 25850 makes it pretty clear:
PC 25850 reads: “A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory."
Then in 2012 California passed PC 26350, an additional law that essentially made it illegal to open carry an unloaded firearm too.
Spoiler:
PENAL CODE
SECTION 26350
26350. (a) (1) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded
handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an exposed
and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or on any of the
following:
(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.
(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area
of a county or city and county.
(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and
county.
(2) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when
that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun inside or on a
vehicle, whether or not on his or her person, while in or on any of
the following:
(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.
(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area
of a county or city and county.
(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and
county.
(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if both of the
following conditions exist:
(A) The handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being
discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that
person.
(B) The person is not in lawful possession of that handgun.
(c) (1) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 29900) of Division 9, Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, or any other law with a penalty
greater than is set forth in this section.
(2) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be
construed as restricting the application of any other law. However,
an act or omission punishable in different ways by different
provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision.
(d) Notwithstanding the fact that the term "an unloaded handgun"
is used in this section, each handgun shall constitute a distinct and
separate offense under this section.
The only way to legally carry or "bear" a firearm in CA is if you get a concealed carry permit from your county sherrif. The ambiguous "good cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit allows county sherrifs to prohibit residents from bearing arms in an oppressive and arbitrary manner. Since such action appears to contradict the 2A a suit was filed in protest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: So far as the "landmines are offtopic" idea - I dunno, I mean, discussion "what the scope of what the second amendment should entail" seems to be a natural part of any discussion about to "a decision about the 9th circuit picking a position on the scope of the 2nd amendment".
I mean, obviously, this thread is going to turn into an open sewer, and probably soon, because it always does. However I don't think what we're talking about right now is really off-topic to the OP. Just my 2 cents.
I just don't see how it relates to the 9th Circuit decision because the decision have nothing to do with what firearms can be legally owned because it only addresses the ability to legally carry firearms. CA already has extremely restrictive (and downright silly) laws about what firearms residents can own. The consitutional challenge is that CA laws, coupled with county sherrif's discretion can prohibit CA residents from their ability to bear arms.
Of course I'm not a mod so my opinion on it doesn't matter and this thread is likely to get locked eventually anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/10 15:48:56
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 16:04:02
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Consealed weapons should be allowed everywhere, whats the point in having a weapon if people can see it?
Also I seen how some muslims and minorities get abused in the world, they should be allowed to carry in secret. Any poor muslim should be allowed to carry any weapon in public places with out having to show it and cause alarm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 16:04:32
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
2016/06/10 16:35:59
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
Except open carry is illegal in CA.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/06/10 17:20:08
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
As a shameless anti-gun nut, even I can see that a ban on open carry and a practical ban on CCW does infringe on the "bear arms" part of your constitution.
it doesn't bother me, but I can see the point that pro-gun nuts are making.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/06/10 17:52:33
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.
SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.
Can you please not make this argument.
You *can* say FIRE in a cinema WHEN THERE'S AN ACTUAL FIRE!
What you CANNOT do, is yell FIRE with the express purpose of creating CHAOS where people can get hurt. That never had the 1st Amendment protection.
So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?
I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.
OgreChubbs wrote: Consealed weapons should be allowed everywhere, whats the point in having a weapon if people can see it?
To show how tacticool and blinged out your AR is?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/06/10 22:05:34
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Here's a general response addressed to Whembly and others regarding the 2nd.
I'm telling you stuff that you already know but:
The founders were against standing armies, but we live in an age where the USA has the most powerful military in the world.
James Madison passionately believed in the militias, then the British army payed him a visit.
George Washington believed that the USA shouldn't entangle itself in foreign affairs. Trade with all nations, alliance with none. The USA is allied with many nations as a result of NATO.
Many founding fathers were slaves owners, the USA fought a civil war and abolished slavery years later.
Lincoln and FDR strecthed executive power to the limit during their respective terms
And a court ruled that the 1st amendment didn't give you a blank cheque to shout FIRE in a cinema. You know what context I was referring too.
America has changed. Technology has changed. American society has changed, and events around the world changed America. The 2nd can not and should not be immune to change. That isn't to say that it should be scrapped or that people's right to bear arms should be violated, not unless the 2/3 clause gets invoked, but the 2nd is not this law that is set in stone for evermore.
That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.
CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.
If I'm reading this right, then California says you can own a gun for open carry, but not for concealed carry.
I don't see any violation of their right to self-defence or a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
Except open carry is illegal in CA.
Well, I've made a mistake there, and I put my hand up and admit that mistake.
I honestly thought that people could open carry in CA, hence my earlier view that permits for concealed carry shouldn't be a big deal.
If you can't open carry, and you can't conceal carry, then that is a clear violation of a citizen's 2nd amendment rights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 22:08:18
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/06/10 22:34:15
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Ouze wrote: 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.
That's sort of my view on it. Although, I still think that government/private facilitates do have the authority to say "no guns on our property". Bringing your rifle into a chipotle is not protected by the constitution.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/06/10 23:24:19
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
2016/06/10 23:37:49
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
Nope. That Crossfire show got cancelled. Best thing Jon Stewart ever did.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/11 00:20:58
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest. The current enforcement of the law in some places is arguably unreasonable, but the law itself is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
No, it's actually a quite strong argument because it illustrates the fact that constitutional rights are not absolute. The state can and does limit your rights for the good of society as a whole. This is why nuclear weapons can't be legally owned (despite being "arms"), and there's a fairly good argument that the state has a legitimate interest in controlling who is allowed to carry a loaded gun in public where their use of that gun would put innocent bystanders at risk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/11 00:23:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/06/11 00:46:53
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
'State interest' has feth all to do with the rights protected by the constitution. The constitution was put in place to limit Gov't, not limit the people.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/06/11 00:53:01
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Henry wrote: So you have the right to bear arms except that in CA open carry is illegal and concealed carry is illegal? You have a constitutionally protected right that is almost impossible to use? This is looking a lot like those states where abortion is constitutionally protected but they made up as many laws as they could to make it effectively impossible.
Don't the left and right talk at all in the States?
The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest. The current enforcement of the law in some places is arguably unreasonable, but the law itself is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So, that's a weak argument for curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
No, it's actually a quite strong argument because it illustrates the fact that constitutional rights are not absolute. The state can and does limit your rights for the good of society as a whole. This is why nuclear weapons can't be legally owned (despite being "arms"), and there's a fairly good argument that the state has a legitimate interest in controlling who is allowed to carry a loaded gun in public where their use of that gun would put innocent bystanders at risk.
I think very few of us have much of an issue with having to get a CCW license in order to concealed carry. Some people might prefer if it wasn't a requirement or support Constitutional carry, but for the most part CCW licenses are a compromise many gun owners are willing to accept. The problem is in states like California, the average citizen in the vast majority of cases can't actually get one. That's a problem, and when you can neither concealed carry nor open carry, I don't think anyone could honestly claim that the right to bear arms is not being infringed and unreasonably restricted.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest.
That's weird. You said "difference" when you meant "exact similarity."
Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable. They use the exact same tactics - attempting to legislate bans in all but name, putting forth hilariously, seemingly deliberately ill-informed spokespeople to make bizarre arguments that have no basis in reality, virulently attacking the lobbying groups fighting to protect the constitutionally-protected right, etc.
They run the exact same goddamn playbook. How do you justify intense loathing for one yet total acceptance for the other?
2016/06/11 01:04:56
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
CptJake wrote: 'State interest' has feth all to do with the rights protected by the constitution. The constitution was put in place to limit Gov't, not limit the people.
And yet the state is indisputably permitted to limit your constitutional rights when it has a compelling interest.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/06/11 01:05:31
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
With these regulations in place, how on earth are you supposed to transport your weapons from your home to the range for an afternoon of shooting; or from your home to your hunting camp?
This is a real hamstring and an absolute infringement on the people's right to bear arms, even if bearing them is just getting from one place to another.
This makes even the mere possession of a weapon in public a crime, concealed, open, or otherwise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/11 01:07:24
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that anti-abortion laws are blatantly absurd requirements that serve no compelling state interest, while CA's concealed handgun permit law does (at least on paper) serve a compelling state interest.
That's weird. You said "difference" when you meant "exact similarity."
Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable. They use the exact same tactics - attempting to legislate bans in all but name, putting forth hilariously, seemingly deliberately ill-informed spokespeople to make bizarre arguments that have no basis in reality, virulently attacking the lobbying groups fighting to protect the constitutionally-protected right, etc.
They run the exact same goddamn playbook. How do you justify intense loathing for one yet total acceptance for the other?
Maybe because they are different things and that makes all the difference. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is much different that wanting to carry around something who's sole purpose is to kill...
2016/06/11 01:08:22
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Hordini wrote: The problem is in states like California, the average citizen in the vast majority of cases can't actually get one.
But they can, according to the law. The law says "must have a good reason" not "may not be issued". If CA had the exact same law but the permits were frequently issued then it would be hard to argue that there's anything unconstitutional about it. So IMO that makes a strong argument for the CA law going in the "bad policy but constitutional" category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: With these regulations in place, how on earth are you supposed to transport your weapons from your home to the range for an afternoon of shooting; or from your home to your hunting camp?
Unloaded, locked in a box. Transport is not an issue here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Honestly, I've always wanted to talk to someone who feels the bs incremenalism of the anti-abortion movement is intolerable, but that the bs incrementalism of the anti-gun movement is perfectly acceptable.
Then you're talking to the wrong person. I don't support everything the anti-gun movement does. Many of the laws they support are bans in all but name with no compelling state interest to justify their existence. I just don't think that the CA law is necessarily unconstitutional.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/11 01:11:12
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/06/11 01:12:14
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
skyth wrote: Maybe because they are different things and that makes all the difference. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is much different that wanting to carry around something who's sole purpose is to kill...
Well, points for being honest, at least. "I'm in favor of disingenuous bs as long as it furthers my political agenda," isn't exactly noble, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/11 01:12:47
2016/06/11 01:17:05
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
It's not a political agenda. It's a moral sense of right and wrong. I accept restrictions on carrying guns (being trained, not being an idiot, etc). I find any attempt to violate someone's bodily autonomy troubling though.
In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
2016/06/11 01:38:39
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
