About sick of this crap.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html
They didn't vote against the right to bear arms, or even arms in public. The decision says the bearing your arms concealed is not a constitutional right. There have been past decisions (Heller) by the scotus that says it is your right to carry outside of the home. What does it all mean? The 9th circuit just kept that states and localities in power when it comes to CCW.
-SVTPete
They didn't vote against the right to bear arms, or even arms in public. The decision says the bearing your arms concealed is not a constitutional right. There have been past decisions (Heller) by the scotus that says it is your right to carry outside of the home. What does it all mean? The 9th circuit just kept that states and localities in power when it comes to CCW.
-SVTPete
Hit the nail on the head. This won't go to scotus either. Even if it did we are tied up 4 to 4. In california the legislators as well as the judicial branch stands against the citizens.They effectively ruled against the right to bear arms, because they ruled that you had no right to carry concealed, in a state that prevents you from carrying openly. There is no third way to carry, you're either open or concealed. So the net result is, you have no right to carry in public at all. And the idiocy of limiting the right to bear arms to just one's home has already been shredded by the Supreme Court's decision in Mcdonald v. City of Chicago. There is federal precedent to tell the 9th Circuit to (yet again) pound kale salad up their cleansed vegan assholes. One stickler is, they have no obligation to do so, and another is the absence of a seventh judge.
They effectively ruled against the right to bear arms, because they ruled that you had no right to carry concealed, in a state that prevents you from carrying openly. There is no third way to carry, you're either open or concealed. So the net result is, you have no right to carry in public at all. And the idiocy of limiting the right to bear arms to just one's home has already been shredded by the Supreme Court's decision in Mcdonald v. City of Chicago. There is federal precedent to tell the 9th Circuit to (yet again) pound kale salad up their cleansed vegan assholes. One stickler is, they have no obligation to do so, and another is the absence of a seventh judge.
Can't imagine the supreme court will uphold this. It pretty clearly is an infringement on someone's right to bear arms.
One can OC w/no license here in PA, but I really don't see anyone doing it. I wouldn't want the attention.There are other states that already do this, I am surprised California is just now doing it:
"the court upheld a California law that says applicants must cite a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Typically, people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are granted permits."
Basically, it is impossible to get a permit under this. Meanwhile if you go next door to AZ, you will see people openly carrying on their waste with no permit required.