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
  #161  
Old 06-23-2017, 4:05 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
That would only hasten the Convention of States Project and put a fire under it. I would prefer we push the envelop on the issue. Make'em ban bear if they got the balls ...... I'm pretty sure Gingsburg and that wise Latina have a set .... I don't think Kennedy has the 'nads to go that far though
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-23-2017, 5:43 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,805
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
...and you obviously haven't been paying attention in this thread.

Go back and read the first three of this Part, and the last 2 of Part I - I'm tired of repeating myself.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the "underestimate" statement...

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-23-2017, 5:49 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,805
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
That would only hasten the Convention of States Project and put a fire under it. I would prefer we push the envelop on the issue. Make'em ban bear if they got the balls ...... I'm pretty sure Gingsburg and that wise Latina have a set .... I don't think Kennedy has the 'nads to go that far though
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-23-2017, 6:39 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
Risk vs Reward. It's a possibility, but not as far as the 2A is concerned, so I disagree on that point and it certainly isn't the 'Most Likely" outcome in my view. Free States have the Majority. Plus, having a strong 2A will ultimately protect the other fundamental rights, one way or another.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-23-2017, 7:35 AM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 104
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I've got a question I've been wondering for a while now....it might be a completely noob question but why is it out of all the bill of rights it's only the second amendment that is truely regulated by the states instead of the Federal? You can't say "in Colorado you can use this word or phrase but you can't in Arizona according to the law." Or "wait you mean to tell me I have to house the national guard while my neighbor 2 miles away in Oregon doesn't cause my state says I have to?" How did this whole states have control thing really happen? I do believe this pertains to this thread but I will move it if I need to...

Imagine how red this country would be on Election Day if EVERYONES state was forced to follow Ca gun laws

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-23-2017 at 7:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 06-23-2017, 7:52 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,805
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The Bill of Rights (First 10 - 12 or 13 actually) was a push by the States as a reminder to the new Federal Government IN WRITING that the Federal Government is to respect the preexisting rights of THEIR citizens in the several States and the preexisting rights of the States themselves.

And of course under the English tradition, States or "Authorites" could if they chose to regulate things like CCW, certain religious practices, education, appointments, occupational licensing, etc...

Put yourselves in the shoes of a States protecting the preexisting rights of your citizens AND your State and the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights starts to have more clarity.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:06 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Nothing today but some commentary from scotusblog live blog:

Quote:
1) When is the next possible release of orders?
2) Might it be the big, end-of-term orderlist?
3) How unusual would it be for the court to save a number of big orders - Masterpiece Cake shop, the 2A case - for the final release of the term?
by David 6:45 AM ↑0

Edith Roberts
There will be orders on Monday, and probably more after an as-yet-unnanounced clean-up conference. I don't think it would be that unusual to save the high-profile orders until the end.
6:45 AM

Quote:
So does this mean we'll have an answer as to whether they'll take Peruta by Monday?
by Ben 7:33 AM ↑0

Amy Howe
I think either Monday or Tuesday, yes. I can't remember whether I typed this earlier and am too lazy to look, but if Monday is the last day for opinions they will hold another conference that day and announce orders on Tuesday morning.
7:33 AM

Amy Howe
Mostly the orders from that day will "clean up" the cases that have been on hold waiting the outcome in merits cases decided on Monday, but as I recall last year they granted a few cases on that conference too.
7:34 AM
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 437
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
It has ever been thus...

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "citizenship" is the right and the "right to vote" exists, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of African-Americans voting in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.

See: Dred Scott
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:43 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,996
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The Bill of Rights (First 10 - 12 or 13 actually) was a push by the States as a reminder to the new Federal Government IN WRITING that the Federal Government is to respect the preexisting rights of THEIR citizens in the several States and the preexisting rights of the States themselves.

And of course under the English tradition, States or "Authorites" could if they chose to regulate things like CCW, certain religious practices, education, appointments, occupational licensing, etc...

Put yourselves in the shoes of a States protecting the preexisting rights of your citizens AND your State and the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights starts to have more clarity.

=8-)
So what you're saying is that an Article V Convention will result in the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Right?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
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 11:41 AM.




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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.