PDA

View Full Version : A little help explaining my (our) rights.


budprop
05-08-2012, 1:12 PM
Ok, I have spent a day and 1/2 going through the threads in here and am still at a loss as to how I can exercise my 2nd amendment right here in San Diego. From what I understand the courts said that we don't need 'will issue' because we had 'open carry', but then the state took away open carry...but we still have to have a compelling need (other than I am an American and a human and have a constitutional right) to arm myself.

Is there an answer here? Someone please dumb this down for me. Legal references are cool, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I believe it is a requirement to be able to read legalise to enjoy my constitutional rights, so 'Barney' speak is preferable.

ie_shooter
05-08-2012, 1:16 PM
Are you asking how to get a CCW in San Diego?

budprop
05-08-2012, 1:25 PM
No

I am asking how the state justifies denying my 2nd amendment right with removing open carry and making concealed carry unobtainable without a compelling need. I am asking if California/San Diego has effectively denied me of my constitutional right to bear arms.

Flintlock Tom
05-08-2012, 1:32 PM
No

I am asking how the state justifies denying my 2nd amendment right with removing open carry and making concealed carry unobtainable without a compelling need. I am asking if California/San Diego has effectively denied me of my constitutional right to bear arms.
The answer to your question is: Yes.
They don't have to "justify" it, they just do it.
And the answer to your next question is: Because we let them.

Purple K
05-08-2012, 1:50 PM
The Peruta case at the 9th Circuit is a LTC/CCW case originating in San Diego. The case is currently stayed pending the outcom of the Nordyke case. Richards v. Prieto is another LTC/CCW case currently at the 9th Circuit Court of appeals. The wheels are slowly turning forward.

NoJoke
05-08-2012, 1:51 PM
...and the answer to the next question that MANY here have, identical to your excellent OP question is to fund CGF. It is speculated that w/in 3-5 years (hopefully sooner), CA will be shall issue.

The fight isn't free. Fund here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1313572&postcount=1

zhyla
05-08-2012, 1:54 PM
I am asking how the state justifies denying my 2nd amendment right with removing open carry and making concealed carry unobtainable without a compelling need. I am asking if California/San Diego has effectively denied me of my constitutional right to bear arms.

They (correctly) justify it by pointing at Peruta v. San Diego. You want a tissue or something? We're all waiting for Peruta and similar cases to move forward. It going to take a few years to sort that all out. The Supreme Court may need to rule on carry rights at some point.

ElvenSoul
05-08-2012, 1:56 PM
Well like all Grass Root Causes, start a pettition and take it to your local City Council. Good Luck!

Casual_Shooter
05-08-2012, 2:32 PM
Depends on your/ their definition of the 2nd A; and unfortunately for now, their definition wins.

In their minds, they have denied you nothing. You can go buy a gun and shoot it..... with just a few, minor, restrictions, to save yourself from yourself. You know... it's for your own good.

/sarcasm.

jwkincal
05-08-2012, 3:30 PM
...and the answer to the next question that MANY here have, identical to your excellent OP question is to fund CGF. It is speculated that w/in 3-5 years (hopefully sooner), CA will be shall issue.


Three to five years?!?!?! I thought it was :twoweeks:

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 3:45 PM
Three to five years?!?!?! I thought it was :twoweeks:

Huh? Did I miss something big?

fighterpilot562
05-08-2012, 3:49 PM
Most people will agree with you here, everyone here wants a shall issue. but people here(in cali) love having demo in power

pointedstick
05-08-2012, 8:34 PM
No

I am asking how the state justifies denying my 2nd amendment right with removing open carry and making concealed carry unobtainable without a compelling need. I am asking if California/San Diego has effectively denied me of my constitutional right to bear arms.

Yes, they have. How? They're bigger and more powerful than you are, and if they catch you violating their decrees, they'll hurt you until you stop or die. That's all there is to it.

Government is really a very simple thing.

CalBear
05-08-2012, 9:00 PM
Huh? Did I miss something big?
It's a recurring inside joke here. Everything is only two weeks away, even if it's probably years away. Good things will come... in two weeks.

CalBear
05-08-2012, 9:07 PM
Ok, I have spent a day and 1/2 going through the threads in here and am still at a loss as to how I can exercise my 2nd amendment right here in San Diego. From what I understand the courts said that we don't need 'will issue' because we had 'open carry', but then the state took away open carry...but we still have to have a compelling need (other than I am an American and a human and have a constitutional right) to arm myself.
Court rulings travel the path of least resistance. When judges see an out, they tend to take it. The CA district court rulings on carry preceded the OC ban, so the courts used OC as one of their outs.

What we've also seen in rulings suggests the district courts might believe "may issue" satisfies our 2A rights. Either way, the courts move slowly, and it will take a few years for things to unfold. Hopefully we will see a carry case make it to the supreme court next session.

hoffmang
05-08-2012, 9:58 PM
Bear arms will mean what we all know it means on either June 30, 2013 or June 30, 2014 based on a new Supreme Court ruling on either of those two dates. I'd give it a 40% chance of 2013 based on 2nd, 7th, 10th, and 1st Circuit federal courts of appeals cases which are all outlined here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present

-Gene

kcbrown
05-11-2012, 3:43 AM
Bear arms will mean what we all know it means on either June 30, 2013 or June 30, 2014 based on a new Supreme Court ruling on either of those two dates. I'd give it a 40% chance of 2013 based on 2nd, 7th, 10th, and 1st Circuit federal courts of appeals cases which are all outlined here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present


How can we possibly get it by June 30, 2013? The cases that are coming up the ladder won't be ruled on at the circuit level in time for the appeal to be filed, much less cert granted, by October of this year, will they?

That means June 30, 2014 at the earliest, and possibly June 30, 2015. And there's still the question of when we'll actually get the win in Richards, which might not even be until June, 2016 (assuming it's not still stayed pending Nordyke :rolleyes: ).

And then, after that, we'll have to fight all the myriad fights in the anti-gun strongholds as they attempt to pull a Chicago on us....

ClarenceBoddicker
05-11-2012, 12:58 PM
Ok, I have spent a day and 1/2 going through the threads in here and am still at a loss as to how I can exercise my 2nd amendment right here in San Diego. From what I understand the courts said that we don't need 'will issue' because we had 'open carry', but then the state took away open carry...but we still have to have a compelling need (other than I am an American and a human and have a constitutional right) to arm myself.

Is there an answer here? Someone please dumb this down for me. Legal references are cool, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I believe it is a requirement to be able to read legalise to enjoy my constitutional rights, so 'Barney' speak is preferable.

Unless you are a "special" person (LEO, FD, CO, politically connected, rich, etc) you can't fully & freely exercise your 2A rights, other than defending your domicile (house, apartment, etc) with a firearm in CA. IIRC, Americans gave up their so called open armed carry rights Federally sometime in the 1800's, maybe even before that. There may have been a few states that never regulated open armed carry, but most did so by the early 1900's, which was when America became a communist (communist is really just a meaningless political term which is interchangeable with others like: socialist, fascist, Police State, etc. They all have the same end result for the masses: loss of freedom & Liberty) country, BTW.

CA, like some other states, is what is called a may issue state, unlike most other states which are so called shall issue. In a may issue state like CA is, you may (depending if the agents approve your request for permission) be issued conditional permission (a license or permit) from the government/authorities to carry a loaded pistol concealed for self protection, as long as you don't have so called disqualifying legal disabilities & pass . For many people this is not even possible due to minor transgressions at a younger age, being a member of the wrong race or socioeconomic class, or other such discriminatory issues. Some LE agencies play political games & use the may issue clause as a form of local gun control and also use it to reward cronies and campaign contributors. The bottom line is that they can deny your request for permission for any & all reasons, and you have no means of redress. Then there is the issue of having to pay the government to practice a basic Constitutional right. How many people would be OK with paying a fee or having to get conditional permission (a permit or license) to vote?

In a shall issue state like NV, you shall or will be issued conditional permission (a license or permit) from the government/authorities to carry a loaded pistol concealed for self protection, as long as you don't have so called disqualifying legal disabilities. The shall issue removes the discriminatory & political issues, yet the Constitutional issues of having to pay to exercise your rights remains.

A very few states allow concealed carry without conditional permission. Those are truly free states.

Another telling fact is that the CA state constitution does not have a 2A clause, unlike most other states that do. IMO, anyone who believes that CA will be forced into becoming a shall issue state or that somehow Federal carry rights will be restored via a forced nationwide reciprocity scheme by the SCOTUS is deluded. The supremes record on the 2A is very weak at best. Look at the whole history of Federal anti-gun laws & how many of those laws have been struck down by the supremes. All you have to do is look at the history of SCOTUS rulings on other individual freedom & Liberty issues to see that they do not side with citizens when doing so would diminish governmental "rights". The full list is too long to post, but here are a few examples: income tax, eminent domain, narcotics/controlled substances, switchblade knives, NFA weapons, gold standard/The Fed, interment of American citizens of Japanese decent, un-patriotic act, etc, etc. An objective study of the history of the SCOTUS will reveal that they are just a shill for government/mega corporations & rule to maintain the status quo.

If the OP does some research he will discover that the Federal government considers him to be physical property or an asset. I believe that the SCOTUS has upheld this theory many times. If maintaining a facade of freedom is important to the OP by being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, he should move out of CA to a shall issue state or better yet a free non issue state. CA is on the cusp of radical change once the GOP loses a few seats in the Legislature. This could happen in the next few years & once the Democrats have a 2/3 majority, expect an orgy of pent up pro union taxation to erupt. No one other than the boomers believes that the GOP will ever have control of the CA Legislature again. The only reliable way to get rid of CA's anti-gun laws is by legislation. The most that the GOP will accomplish in CA is electing another mildly anti-gun RINO governor as a stepping stone to POTUS. They failed miserably with Meg. CA has never seen a rabidly anti-gun Governor like Clinton. CA could easily become just like NY, NJ, MA, IL & HI or worse, with the right anti-gun Governor.

kcbrown
05-11-2012, 3:46 PM
Another telling fact is that the CA state constitution does not have a 2A clause, unlike most other states that do.

While it's true that CA does not have a 2A clause, it's almost entirely irrelevant that it doesn't. HI has a 2A clause and they are no issue there. Their 2A clause is a dead letter.

The existence of a 2A clause in a state's constitution means absolutely nothing at all. Remember that up until around 1995, most states were either no-issue or may-issue despite the RKBA clause in their respective state constitutions.

No, you can't tell a thing from the existence of a state's RKBA clause. It is entirely meaningless.

NoJoke
05-11-2012, 4:51 PM
Unless you are a "special" person (LEO, FD, CO, politically connected, rich, etc) you can't fully & freely exercise your 2A rights, other than defending your domicile (house, apartment, etc) with a firearm in CA. IIRC, Americans gave up their so called open armed carry rights Federally sometime in the 1800's, maybe even before that. There may have been a few states that never regulated open armed carry, but most did so by the early 1900's, which was when America became a communist (communist is really just a meaningless political term which is interchangeable with others like: socialist, fascist, Police State, etc. They all have the same end result for the masses: loss of freedom & Liberty) country, BTW.

CA, like some other states, is what is called a may issue state, unlike most other states which are so called shall issue. In a may issue state like CA is, you may (depending if the agents approve your request for permission) be issued conditional permission (a license or permit) from the government/authorities to carry a loaded pistol concealed for self protection, as long as you don't have so called disqualifying legal disabilities & pass . For many people this is not even possible due to minor transgressions at a younger age, being a member of the wrong race or socioeconomic class, or other such discriminatory issues. Some LE agencies play political games & use the may issue clause as a form of local gun control and also use it to reward cronies and campaign contributors. The bottom line is that they can deny your request for permission for any & all reasons, and you have no means of redress. Then there is the issue of having to pay the government to practice a basic Constitutional right. How many people would be OK with paying a fee or having to get conditional permission (a permit or license) to vote?

In a shall issue state like NV, you shall or will be issued conditional permission (a license or permit) from the government/authorities to carry a loaded pistol concealed for self protection, as long as you don't have so called disqualifying legal disabilities. The shall issue removes the discriminatory & political issues, yet the Constitutional issues of having to pay to exercise your rights remains.

A very few states allow concealed carry without conditional permission. Those are truly free states.

Another telling fact is that the CA state constitution does not have a 2A clause, unlike most other states that do. IMO, anyone who believes that CA will be forced into becoming a shall issue state or that somehow Federal carry rights will be restored via a forced nationwide reciprocity scheme by the SCOTUS is deluded. The supremes record on the 2A is very weak at best. Look at the whole history of Federal anti-gun laws & how many of those laws have been struck down by the supremes. All you have to do is look at the history of SCOTUS rulings on other individual freedom & Liberty issues to see that they do not side with citizens when doing so would diminish governmental "rights". The full list is too long to post, but here are a few examples: income tax, eminent domain, narcotics/controlled substances, switchblade knives, NFA weapons, gold standard/The Fed, interment of American citizens of Japanese decent, un-patriotic act, etc, etc. An objective study of the history of the SCOTUS will reveal that they are just a shill for government/mega corporations & rule to maintain the status quo.

If the OP does some research he will discover that the Federal government considers him to be physical property or an asset. I believe that the SCOTUS has upheld this theory many times. If maintaining a facade of freedom is important to the OP by being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, he should move out of CA to a shall issue state or better yet a free non issue state. CA is on the cusp of radical change once the GOP loses a few seats in the Legislature. This could happen in the next few years & once the Democrats have a 2/3 majority, expect an orgy of pent up pro union taxation to erupt. No one other than the boomers believes that the GOP will ever have control of the CA Legislature again. The only reliable way to get rid of CA's anti-gun laws is by legislation. The most that the GOP will accomplish in CA is electing another mildly anti-gun RINO governor as a stepping stone to POTUS. They failed miserably with Meg. CA has never seen a rabidly anti-gun Governor like Clinton. CA could easily become just like NY, NJ, MA, IL & HI or worse, with the right anti-gun Governor.

I feel like I just got slapped in the face. :(

Firemark
05-11-2012, 6:12 PM
It gets worse, not only does the state and legislature hate 2A rights and activley work to remove them, they are activley supported by LE and Mayors and city councils with an anti gun agenda. Police chiefs and senior staff as well as Sheriffs and their senior staff all support anti gun legislation, especially the counties with high populaitons along the coastal belt.

I have seen democratic representitives (Saldana) working directly in close relationship with Senior Law enforcement officials.

And it makes perfect sense, as a police agency why would you allow citizens the ability to lower crime in your jurisdiction thus lowering the need for a large department and continued budget. Their is a specific need to keep crime at a certain level to validate numbers and exsistence. And there are way to many california voters pleasently asleep and blind or brainwashed to whats going on.

hoffmang
05-11-2012, 7:12 PM
How can we possibly get it by June 30, 2013? The cases that are coming up the ladder won't be ruled on at the circuit level in time for the appeal to be filed, much less cert granted, by October of this year, will they?

Moore in the 7th Circuit may very well have a final opinion before the start of the Supreme Court term for next year. As long as cert is granted by 12/31/2012 and maybe even 2/15/2013 then we get a decision by June 2013. Also, we're likely to have court of appeals opinions in Peterson and Embody be the end of September.

-Gene

kcbrown
05-11-2012, 8:03 PM
Moore in the 7th Circuit may very well have a final opinion before the start of the Supreme Court term for next year. As long as cert is granted by 12/31/2012 and maybe even 2/15/2013 then we get a decision by June 2013. Also, we're likely to have court of appeals opinions in Peterson and Embody be the end of September.

-Gene

Ah, okay. For some reason, I thought the appeals were due in October. Good to know that isn't the case.

Sweet. :43: