Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2017, 11:37 AM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,086
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Peruta Majority Opinion writer D.F. O'Scanlain featured in NRO

I saw this briefly this morning and wanted to bring it to Calguns:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-senior-status

Quote:
For example, Judge O’Scannlain held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms — which, like all of the Bill of Rights, restrains only the federal government — applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, vacating his decision. But a year later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court vindicated Judge O’Scannlain’s position.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-05-2017, 1:17 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,986
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yup. Now if we can only find 100 more just like him but in their 40s...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2017, 2:29 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,131
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Yup. Now if we can only find 100 more just like him but in their 40s...
It's possible. No Senate filibusters and no more granting deference to nomination to home State Senators (Feinstein and Harris) as appeasement.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-06-2017, 6:32 PM
JohnnyDerp JohnnyDerp is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlyworking View Post
I saw this briefly this morning and wanted to bring it to Calguns:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-senior-status
The Constitution is not restrained only to the Federal Government. Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

AKA the Supremacy Clause, an oft overlooked statement by the founders that is routinely ignored by Legislators, Justices and Citizens
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-11-2017, 3:02 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDerp View Post
The Constitution is not restrained only to the Federal Government. Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

AKA the Supremacy Clause, an oft overlooked statement by the founders that is routinely ignored by Legislators, Justices and Citizens

Not by everyone though. It is what inspired my ranting here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...hlight=Raisuli


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-16-2017, 8:59 PM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDerp View Post
The Constitution is not restrained only to the Federal Government. Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

AKA the Supremacy Clause, an oft overlooked statement by the founders that is routinely ignored by Legislators, Justices and Citizens
Wrong.

The Supremacy Clause is used to resolve disputes between the federal and state governments.

The federal government controls, essentially, the National Highway System (interstate highways, the 5 freeway here in California). Let us say Congress legislates 65 miles per hour as the speed limit for the federal highway system. Let us say California sets a speed limit of 75 mph anywhere in the state. You then decide to to drive 75 on the 5 freeway. You end up receiving a ticket for doing so. Guess what, the Supremacy Clause says you'll lose in any court of law.

But it doesn't mean a federal 65 mph speed limit will allow you to drive 65 anywhere in the entirety of the U.S. because the federal government isn't supposed to control the entirety of the U.S.

Meaning, states have rights as well (for the most part, but that is another discussion).

It's a dispute resolution device. That is all.

I don't see how it relates to gun laws in California, unless of course you think the federal government should be legislating whether you can keep and bear arms. Which it shouldn't be doing.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2017, 5:22 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
Wrong.

The Supremacy Clause is used to resolve disputes between the federal and state governments.

The federal government controls, essentially, the National Highway System (interstate highways, the 5 freeway here in California). Let us say Congress legislates 65 miles per hour as the speed limit for the federal highway system. Let us say California sets a speed limit of 75 mph anywhere in the state. You then decide to to drive 75 on the 5 freeway. You end up receiving a ticket for doing so. Guess what, the Supremacy Clause says you'll lose in any court of law.

But it doesn't mean a federal 65 mph speed limit will allow you to drive 65 anywhere in the entirety of the U.S. because the federal government isn't supposed to control the entirety of the U.S.

Meaning, states have rights as well (for the most part, but that is another discussion).

It's a dispute resolution device. That is all.

I don't see how it relates to gun laws in California, unless of course you think the federal government should be legislating whether you can keep and bear arms. Which it shouldn't be doing.

Of course the Federal Govt should be legislating RKBA. It is in the Federal Constitution, after all.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-22-2017, 3:26 PM
PrestonNorthEnd PrestonNorthEnd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: California Socialist Republic
Posts: 37
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Of course the Federal Govt should be legislating RKBA. It is in the Federal Constitution, after all.


The Raisuli
You don't understand Amendment II. All the rights pertaining to firearms are retained by us, none are left with the Federal government.

Amendment I lays out that no laws shall be made. Amendments III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII all lay out procedure allowing the Federal government to proceed or do something.

Where in Amendment II is either? Your implication is correct, there is no wording saying they can't make laws favorable to firearm rights. There also isn't wording that it can legislate.

"Infringed" means the Federal government can't encroach into the territory of firearms. It isn't just about denial of rights. Any type of law is a trespass into a territory reserved solely to the people. It's is our right to decide whether we want to, or not to, keep and bear arms.
__________________
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-05-2017, 10:11 AM
JeffC's Avatar
JeffC JeffC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The supremacy clause says when a law is constitutional, it is the supreme law of the land.

Only individuals have rights....

What ever authority a state has it only has because individuals delegate it.

What ever authority the federal government has, has been delevated to it by the i individual states.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-10-2017, 6:05 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestonNorthEnd View Post
You don't understand Amendment II. All the rights pertaining to firearms are retained by us, none are left with the Federal government.

Amendment I lays out that no laws shall be made. Amendments III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII all lay out procedure allowing the Federal government to proceed or do something.

Where in Amendment II is either? Your implication is correct, there is no wording saying they can't make laws favorable to firearm rights. There also isn't wording that it can legislate.

"Infringed" means the Federal government can't encroach into the territory of firearms. It isn't just about denial of rights. Any type of law is a trespass into a territory reserved solely to the people. It's is our right to decide whether we want to, or not to, keep and bear arms.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying that the Feds can infringe upon the Right. I was saying that state legislatures can legislate on the matter at all because gun laws are a matter of Federal jurisdiction.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-10-2017, 11:39 AM
Batman's Avatar
Batman Batman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mission Viejo (OC)
Posts: 1,501
iTrader: 104 / 100%
Default

Ask that Kentucky court officer who didn't want to issue marriage licenses for gay couples how that "State's Rights" trumped the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-23-2017, 8:23 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Ask that Kentucky court officer who didn't want to issue marriage licenses for gay couples how that "State's Rights" trumped the Supreme Court.

An excellent example.

The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.