No right to carry concealed weapons in public

rotor_powerd

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
7,412
Location
VA
That's fine, they can say whatever they want. Concealed means concealed. :)
 

Voltwings

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
2,739
Location
Houston
The fact that they site it as "a major victory for public safety" is a special kind of stupid. Really just blows my mind how someone can just think that's going to stop an individual who has the intent to harm someone from actually harming someone...
 

Klay

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,504
Location
California
I always find it funny how those who favor gun control always cite public safety as a reason and rarely speak about the constitutionality of it. Yet, those who are gun advocates always refer to the 2nd amendent and defend it based off what are constitution says and not just their feelings.

Can't imagine the supreme court will uphold this. It pretty clearly is an infringement on someone's right to bear arms.
 

SVTPete83

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
2,436
Location
Napa Ca
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
 

o2gt

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
970
Location
Texas
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

I believe Heller guaranteed the right to keep a handgun in the home.
 

nxhappy

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
10,031
Location
AZ
I am so sick of these goddamn liberal hippies, I hope they all ****ing burn in eternal hell

Kalifornia is beyond ****ed in 2017, that's for sure
 

MFE

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
2,227
Location
Phoenix
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 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.
 

SVTPete83

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
2,436
Location
Napa Ca
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.
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.

-SVTPete
 

Regulars520

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
1,589
Location
Midwest
Im demanding that if we are going to take all guns off the street then lets do it!!! So since this law is going to keep guns off the street and increase public safety then there is no reason for the police to be armed anymore. So all officers please turn in your sidearms and pick up tickle sticks immediately.
 

Sinister04L

RIP Kane
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
30,024
Location
Houston, TX
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.

Yep.
 

Machdup1

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
6,134
Location
U.S.
As I can't change this ruling, I am going to embrace it. Let's see if the only ones with guns on the street are criminals. Let's see if the people of Ca end up as victims of armed criminals. Let them suffer for their lack of vision and then we can point to them as a cautionary tale. If they want to elected wacko leaders, **** em., they deserve no pity.
 

wundrbird

Proud Father
Established Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
440
Location
Eastern North Carolina
Can't imagine the supreme court will uphold this. It pretty clearly is an infringement on someone's right to bear arms.

If Her Highness becomes President, and she's able to nominate a minimum two justices, then that decision will certainly hold up, and Heller will be nullified.

Of course, I don't trust Trump, either, so I guess we'll all eventually become criminals.
 

MachME

2V Power
Established Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,896
Location
Z
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.


EDIT - waist*:(
 
Last edited:

Never_Enough

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
9,909
Location
PA
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.
One can OC w/no license here in PA, but I really don't see anyone doing it. I wouldn't want the attention.
 

L8APEX

*Turbo Not to Scale
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,738
Location
The Air Capitol
Why is it that the "left" are more concerned about nullifying basically the entire Bill of Rights and bathrooms?
"It's for a militia ... muskets ... not ASSAULT WEAPONS HANDGUNS BAZOOKA....!" so focused on the militia word they miss the "shall not be infringed?" I love it when they then bring up the 10th amendment for "flyover states" to be able to keep their weapons. “Oh the states can decide…” I love the 10th but the federalists try to ignore it exists for everything else.
These people are so dense that they do not see the 2nd amendment ultimately protects and acts as a buttress for the first! But they'd rather have a bunch of people who feel hopeless, not empowered because the masses would be easier to control.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top