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
  #41  
Old 07-11-2019, 3:30 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mr Tenemae, Agreed, “Shall not be infringed”....but according to California PC 25850, 26400, 26350, it is unlawful to and there are penalties for carrying openly a loaded or unloaded weapon, beyond your residence or business into public areas. Concealed carry is not your Right, it is a permission which some may gain, and most will not. It is a permission which the state can restrict, grant or not in any way they so choose. 26150, and 26155(b)(2), are the only avenue through which a lawful individual may exercise the core right to “bear arms”, in public. None of these permits have ever been issued in any County in California.....Not One single one. Thirty county sheriffs, and police chiefs within those counties are barred by Penal Code from issuing because populations exceed 200,000. You may well keep arms, but unless you are prepared to be arrested, your Right to bear arms is non existent.

Mr. Brady.....not pointing any fingers, not casting aspersions, but our reality because of a corrupt and liberally activist court is that concealed carry is not a right. It is now officially a permission which California can regulate or deny as it so chooses. Open carry is the only option which may remain open to lawful individuals in California if someone can carry the day in court.

Mr taperxz. Without any knowledge of the people involved it is unwise to make value judgments regarding who does or does not have “experience” in the gun world.
Perhaps there are people who think the state’s attorneys are stupid but we are not among those people. Exactly who is in charge of this strategy, because to date success has been fleeting. Hopefully we have successes in the future, I pray that will be true.
Our God given Rights are undeniably linked to us as individuals. If there is a plan to restore liberty, please don’t keep it a secret, many will join in. Otherwise we will seek redress in the ways we think Liberty can best be achieved.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-11-2019, 3:36 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 666
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
Mr. Brady.....not pointing any fingers, not casting aspersions, but our reality because of a corrupt and liberally activist court is that concealed carry is not a right. It is now officially a permission which California can regulate or deny as it so chooses. Open carry is the only option which may remain open to lawful individuals in California if someone can carry the day in court.
I know you mean well, sir, but, respectfully, your statement does not make any sense whatsoever as a legal analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-11-2019, 3:44 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Please cite the case that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that CCW is NOT a RIGHT.

Denying cert for a case is not by any means a "Unanimous" ruling against the petitioner.

New member "mcbair" said;

Concealed carry is NOT a right. Cert denied in Peruta, end of story.

"mcbair", you seem to be laboring under the same misconception as Highlander.

There are a lot of chapters left in this "story".
"Unaminous" . . . night try at shifting the goalpost...very dishonest.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

. . . and Peruta deferred to it when declaring "concealed carry is not the right" (paraphrasing) while ducking the open carry aspect of the "some form of carry" request.

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-11-2019, 3:44 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
I know you mean well, sir, but, respectfully, your statement does not make any sense whatsoever as a legal analysis.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-11-2019, 4:18 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
I would love to engage, but in doing so on a public forum (where the DoJ is known to lurk) I would be doing the state's job for them. Not that I think it will be difficult for them to torpedo this case in the first place. For example:

When you make arguments like this, it's reminiscent of the statement "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand". You claim that I, by living in a high pop. county, have "NO second Amendment Right at all". Yet I own firearms. We can nitpick over the definitions of rights and privileges, but that's not an argument you're going to win in front of a judge in CA. Not unless NYSRPA hands down a mandate in scrutiny, but at that point we've won anyways. All you'll be doing in the meantime is building precedent against the second amendment and making other legal challenges less likely to succeed.

I get the impatience- I really do. There's an overbearing sense of despair that comes from being a 2A advocate in Ca these days. We all feel we have to "stand up and do something" to stop the loss of our rights completely. I understand that you have all of our best interests at heart. But can you understand how what you're doing might be actually hurting rather than helping us?
It is entirely unfair to target a litigants online posting and represent it as the legal analysis he is presenting to the Court. That is especially the case when the litigant in the instant matter has had the foresight to retain counsel.
__________________
Please add my business facebook page if you are interested in my litigation
https://www.facebook.com/ABeckLaw/
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-11-2019, 5:01 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,973
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
"Unaminous" . . . night try at shifting the goalpost...very dishonest.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

. . . and Peruta deferred to it when declaring "concealed carry is not the right" (paraphrasing) while ducking the open carry aspect of the "some form of carry" request.

Quote:
However, since the Supreme Court has ruled that “concealed carry is not a right,” and all nine justices (conservative, moderate, and liberal blocs) agreed unanimously on that point, that means open carry is our best shot.
"Unanimous" was Highlanders word. Which was incorrect.

And "Peruta" was denied cert. So again, SCOTUS did not rule against Peruta. Certainly not "unanimously". They refused to even hear it.

So mrrabbit, go drop your plethora of pellets elsewhere. Nobody is going to re-read 157 pages of a pdf. Because you aren't capable of otherwise supporting a premise.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-11-2019, 5:51 PM
whatevs09 whatevs09 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
How Authoritarian of you. Since you like to "ban" speech that you don't like, maybe you can join AntiFA. They are always looking for more Soy Boys who get their feelings hurt easily
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-11-2019, 7:47 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
"Unanimous" was Highlanders word. Which was incorrect.

And "Peruta" was denied cert. So again, SCOTUS did not rule against Peruta. Certainly not "unanimously". They refused to even hear it.

So mrrabbit, go drop your plethora of pellets elsewhere. Nobody is going to re-read 157 pages of a pdf. Because you aren't capable of otherwise supporting a premise.
Pay attention.

CA9 took that avenue, SCOTUS denied cert.

The pdf speaks for itself...I do not need to make an argument. CA9 said what they said in Peruta, SCOTUS said what they said in the binding Heller case, not I.

You can continue to do the "Monkey No See" OR read it and take it up with SCOTUS. Your choice...

But to continue requiring people to prove what SOMEONE else said, would be no different that requiring people to prove what the 1st Amendment says in the Constitution . . . while ignoring the very copy in front of your very own nose.

That's just plain lazy.

=8-(
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-12-2019, 5:15 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 164
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Didn't Heller define "bear" to include in the clothing or pocket?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-12-2019, 7:30 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Didn't Heller define "bear" to include in the clothing or pocket?
Yep...just a definition, nothing more.

It was provided by Ginsburg, with all 9 justices agreeing.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-12-2019, 2:02 PM
JaredKaragen JaredKaragen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think linking 'bear' and a definition of 'infringe' should be linked in court.

I know this is over-simplified; but in my eyes, its the best route to restoring our rights in court.

Than again i'm a layman, so these are just my thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-12-2019, 2:25 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,973
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Pay attention.

CA9 took that avenue, SCOTUS denied cert.

The pdf speaks for itself...I do not need to make an argument. CA9 said what they said in Peruta, SCOTUS said what they said in the binding Heller case, not I.

You can continue to do the "Monkey No See" OR read it and take it up with SCOTUS. Your choice...

But to continue requiring people to prove what SOMEONE else said, would be no different that requiring people to prove what the 1st Amendment says in the Constitution . . . while ignoring the very copy in front of your very own nose.

That's just plain lazy.

=8-(

THE MONKEY NO SEE
Is the one with the reading disability that drops pellets where ever he goes.

You accused me of dishonesty for correctly stating that "SCOTUS" never made a unanimous finding striking CCW as a right. A claim incorrectly made by another. Before you starting dropping 157 page pdf pellets. Just like you usually do. Then throw the 9th circus into the mix. On a case that was denied cert.

I asked no one to prove what anyone else said. I simply corrected an incorrect statement made by another member. Which with your reading and challenged comprehension facilities took as another irrelevant pellet dropping opportunity.

9th Circus findings are not relevant, to a "Unanimous SCOTUS" claim.

"LAZY" is defined by a fuzzy tailed pellet dropper. Who consistently makes obsfucatory and deflective irrelevant references unrelated to a topic. Then drops a giant pile of pellets disguised as a pdf to hide his premise behind.

from "wiki"
Quote:
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
5 to 4 is far from UNANIMOUS. And Heller did NOT find that CCW, is not protected by 2A.


So take your migratory goalposts and hop them somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-12-2019, 4:53 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post

THE MONKEY NO SEE
Is the one with the reading disability that drops pellets where ever he goes.

You accused me of dishonesty for correctly stating that "SCOTUS" never made a unanimous finding striking CCW as a right. A claim incorrectly made by another. Before you starting dropping 157 page pdf pellets. Just like you usually do. Then throw the 9th circus into the mix. On a case that was denied cert.

I asked no one to prove what anyone else said. I simply corrected an incorrect statement made by another member. Which with your reading and challenged comprehension facilities took as another irrelevant pellet dropping opportunity.

9th Circus findings are not relevant, to a "Unanimous SCOTUS" claim.

"LAZY" is defined by a fuzzy tailed pellet dropper. Who consistently makes obsfucatory and deflective irrelevant references unrelated to a topic. Then drops a giant pile of pellets disguised as a pdf to hide his premise behind.

from "wiki"


5 to 4 is far from UNANIMOUS. And Heller did NOT find that CCW, is not protected by 2A.


So take your migratory goalposts and hop them somewhere else.
*sigh*

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-13-2019, 2:36 PM
Highlander3751 Highlander3751 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
"Unanimous" was Highlanders word. Which was incorrect.

And "Peruta" was denied cert. So again, SCOTUS did not rule against Peruta. Certainly not "unanimously". They refused to even hear it.

So mrrabbit, go drop your plethora of pellets elsewhere. Nobody is going to re-read 157 pages of a pdf. Because you aren't capable of otherwise supporting a premise.
My apologies; SCOTUS was not unanimous in its ruling; it was unanimous in Heller in that all of the concurring judges, and all of the dissenting judges, agreed on one point: concealed carry is NOT the right protected by the Second Amendment.

"One of the judges on the three judge panel joined in a decision back in 2007 which said, several times, that concealed carry is not a right – Parker v. District of Columba. That decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 2008 when it published its landmark decision – District of Columbia v. Heller. A decision which also said, several times, that there is no right to concealed carry." - Newsblaze

“[A] right to carry arms openly: ‘This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.'” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

Like most, or even all of you, I am imperfect, and use an incorrect word not and again, but how about we discuss the merits of the topic at hand without assigning ulterior motives to each other? My goal, as I am sure is also the goal of at least some of you, is to be able to carry a firearm for lawful purposes, including the defense of myself and my family, without needing a government permission slip to exercise my God-given rights. I would prefer that to be for both concealed and open carry, so that I may choose one, the other, or both and I plan my needs for the day.

However, given SCOTUS's ruling in Heller that concealed carry is not a right, plus their reluctance to hear another concealed carry as evidenced by their denial of cert in so many concealed carry cases, I think that we should focus on open carry for now, and finally get it recognized that, and least in *some* manner, we can exercise our Second Amendment rights without asking for permission to use what is already ours.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,973
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
My apologies; SCOTUS was not unanimous in its ruling; it was unanimous in Heller in that all of the concurring judges, and all of the dissenting judges, agreed on one point: concealed carry is NOT the right protected by the Second Amendment.
Nowhere did SCOTUS find the bolded to be correct. CCW was outside the narrow scope of the Heller case.

Nor did they "Rule" that OC was a protected right. Otherwise all the OC bans, like the Mulford Act would have been stricken in 2008, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They mentioned in dicta, that restrictions on CCW, along with restrictions for felons-crazies, and possession in "sensitive places".

Were "presumptively legal".

Which is not the same as "ruling them to be", "not the protected right". And also "leaves the door open" to further CCW restrictions challenges. Wherein SCOTUS may/can rule on CCW as a protected right.

Rather like Crapofornia's Roster of SAFE handguns. Doesn't make the claim that off roster guns are "unsafe".
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:34 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander3751 View Post
However, given SCOTUS's ruling in Heller that concealed carry is not a right
There you go again, they said no such thing as you would see if you read the opinion carefully. The part you quote is from an 1850 decision in the Louisiana Supreme Court, but only of incidental interest as Heller wasn't about public carry at all.

But really, imo, you'd do better to focus on the Jefferson project as, improbable as it may be, that is the only way you'll get what you seek. Sitting there saying you'd prefer to have the choice but open carry would be OK to start with is just dreaming. Whatever the Constitution says you will never achieve more or less unrestricted open carry in California. Not ever.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:58 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*sigh*

=8-(
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-14-2019, 1:54 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 189
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-14-2019, 8:06 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0
__________________
Please add my business facebook page if you are interested in my litigation
https://www.facebook.com/ABeckLaw/
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:33 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 483
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Jeez, thanks a lot, just sprayed Corona through my nose...
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/JeffersonStateLaser/

Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-14-2019, 2:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,973
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
...[1]...Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

...[2]...“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms....[3]... Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
[1]...An will continue to debate the subject until it is actually ruled upon by SCOTUS. And maybe even after a SCOTUS Ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings finding issues Constitutional. Were later appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

[2]...Those 11 Judges were in the 9th Circus, not SCOTUS.

[3]...As previously stated and ignored by the OC advocates. SCOTUS judges 'mentioning' prior cases during discussions as to their individual opinions. Is not "RULING FOR OR AGAINST" the constitutionality of the subject case.

EXAMPLES.

Ginsburg discussing that her opinion that "And Bear Arms". Includes doing so on ones person for defense including when they are concealed by clothing. Is no more Constitutionally binding than. The "six" items in this quote. From this link.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Anyone claiming that SCOTUS has already determined that OC is RULED a protected RIGHT. And CCW was not ruled a protected right.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, why all OC bans in every state that has them. Isn't already stricken.

YOU CAN"T! because NEITHER ever happened.

Quote:
Dicta. The plural form of dictum. A statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.
Quote:
ruling
The official decision a court makes is a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-14-2019, 5:28 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,102
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
[1]...An will continue to debate the subject until it is actually ruled upon by SCOTUS. And maybe even after a SCOTUS Ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings finding issues Constitutional. Were later appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

[2]...Those 11 Judges were in the 9th Circus, not SCOTUS.

[3]...As previously stated and ignored by the OC advocates. SCOTUS judges 'mentioning' prior cases during discussions as to their individual opinions. Is not "RULING FOR OR AGAINST" the constitutionality of the subject case.

EXAMPLES.

Ginsburg discussing that her opinion that "And Bear Arms". Includes doing so on ones person for defense including when they are concealed by clothing. Is no more Constitutionally binding than. The "six" items in this quote. From this link.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Anyone claiming that SCOTUS has already determined that OC is RULED a protected RIGHT. And CCW was not ruled a protected right.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, why all OC bans in every state that has them. Isn't already stricken.

YOU CAN"T! because NEITHER ever happened.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

...and Ginsburg was providing a definition of bear/carry, not an argument for concealed carry.

*sigh*

=8-(
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,973
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...and Ginsburg was providing a definition of bear/carry, not an argument for concealed carry.
Correct
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-22-2019, 6:17 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First hearing on Sept 6, courtroom 3, at 10am. Please arrive between 8:30 and nine. We are asking for your support. please attend the hearing if it is possible to do so. The more people the better. Courtroom three is a smaller room and many will not get inside but hopefully the crowd will fill the building and spill out into the street. The address for the Court is 501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Afterward, depending upon crowd size, we may march to the Capital Building to let the liars and criminals who think they rule over us that our Liberty is not theirs for the taking. We can take our state back from the felons in Sacramento in the blink of an eye if we would only stand and be counted. It matters that you stand! it matters how you stand! Busses are being organized from the Jefferson Counties. Call your Jefferson Committee chair to help set up car pools or what ever you can. soj51.org has the list of committee chairs if you don’t know yours. If you are a truck owner, and you can, drive around the courthouse with a flag out the window for an hour or so. I was in Salem for the demonstration that stopped cap and trade in a democrat controlled state. Thousands of people, over seven hundred trucks circling the capital building........The legislators abandoned the building. They won because the people stood for something. We can do the same. For over a century there was nothing illegal about carrying a weapon for defense in California. We did it every day and no one said a word. Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts given us by God? Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts our fathers and fore fathers purchased for us with their blood? I will be wearing my pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside. Whether you personally agree with the allegations of this particular case or not, it is an avenue to restore Liberty. Gun owners and freedom loving people all over California could use a victory over tyranny. It matters how you stand!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:04 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good luck guys! Please include Solano county in the SOJ... At least the east half.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6

Last edited by sfpcservice; 07-22-2019 at 7:11 AM..
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 1:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.