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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2010, 7:03 AM
Edward Peruta Edward Peruta is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Union Tribune Article

The Union Tribune has picked up on and published a story about the Federal lawsuit regarding CCWs. The facts are a bit off, but the issue is now in the main stream media for others to view. The comments seem to be very pro Second Amendment and many claim to have NOT known of the issue.

Those on Calguns.net have another good opportunity to state their beliefs in in the comment section of a main stream media front page article in support of "SELF DEFENSE" as the baseline for "GOOD CAUSE".

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...weapon-permit/

Thank you in advance for any support on this issue.

Ed Peruta
  #2  
Old 11-28-2010, 7:14 AM
damon1272 damon1272 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,029
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Ed,
Good article. I would agree that the facts seem a little of. The article does not go to far in articulating the plantiff side of the issue and seems more to support the Sheriff. Plus, I think that the article tries to put you in a negative light with stating your residence. Makes no difference though. It is in the judge's hands now. All I can say is good on you for bringing the case forward. People have a debit of graditude to you for blazing the way along with others on this board that have done great things for the 2nd amendment commuity. Thank you.
  #3  
Old 11-28-2010, 7:31 AM
grim1U's Avatar
grim1U grim1U is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,648
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damon1272 View Post
...I would agree that the facts seem a little off. The article does not go to far in articulating the plantiff side of the issue and seems more to support the Sheriff...
What would you expect a newspaper to report facts, unbiased, in their entirety, with out personal opion/gain? What planet are you from? I kid, I kid. Reporters have long since abandoned "reporting the news/facts" and now tell you THEIR opinions and what they think you should know to best side with them and their liberal views.

But seriously, most news reporters, stations, etc are very liberal and their views on firearms tend to show that. They will go to jail or risk everything in pursuit and maintaining the 1st Ammendment, eh, the second, not so much.

But, I would ASSUME reporters cooperate with say Police Chiefs and Sheriffs because they want first crack at exclusivevs and juicy stories and don't want to be black listed. JMHO
__________________
“Some people live an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference in the world, Marines don't have that problem."
― President Ronald Reagan
  #4  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:11 AM
jtmkinsd jtmkinsd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
The Union Tribune has picked up on and published a story about the Federal lawsuit regarding CCWs. The facts are a bit off, but the issue is now in the main stream media for others to view. The comments seem to be very pro Second Amendment and many claim to have NOT known of the issue.

Ed Peruta
What can one expect from the Soviet Union Tribune?

Glad to see they finally "heard" about your case anyways.
  #5  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:37 AM
uyoga's Avatar
uyoga uyoga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is is always a pleasure to comment on such a worthy struggle. Keep up the fight!
__________________
Non verbis sed operis
  #6  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:57 AM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 738
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The Supreme Court rulings establish self-defense as a fundamental right that can’t be squelched so easily, said attorney Carl Michel.
facts...schmacts....
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
  #7  
Old 11-28-2010, 12:30 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugly13 View Post
facts...schmacts....
I believe that "Carl" is Chuck's actual name.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
  #8  
Old 11-28-2010, 1:06 PM
furyous68 furyous68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I thought the two rulings by the supreme court did NOT limit self-defense to the home... can anyone clarify that for me? The article mentioned they did.
  #9  
Old 11-28-2010, 2:08 PM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 738
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I believe that "Carl" is Chuck's actual name.

-Gene
Doh!
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
  #10  
Old 11-28-2010, 2:14 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,891
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I believe that "Carl" is Chuck's actual name.

-Gene
That is what the CAL Bar web page has for him...
__________________
  #11  
Old 11-28-2010, 3:01 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Need some likes for my postings on this thread:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ment-104525540
  #12  
Old 11-28-2010, 4:22 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,222
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
I thought the two rulings by the supreme court did NOT limit self-defense to the home... can anyone clarify that for me? The article mentioned they did.
You are correct. Heller only spoke to having functional firearms in the home because that was the issue presented, but it did not limit. Neither did McDonald impose a limit to homes.

Some groups want those decisions to have that limitation - it's wishful thinking on their parts.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #13  
Old 11-28-2010, 5:02 PM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 320
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDonald went into a pretty full analysis of what "bear" means. Conclusion: bear means to carry on one's person. No limitation that it be in the home was discussed in the opinion.
  #14  
Old 11-28-2010, 5:22 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Sig, the decision was indeed about functional firearms in the home and an unconstitutional scheme of re-registration. While groundwork was laid for a bear case to follow on and build direct precedent on Heller's "individual right to keep functional arms in the home for self-defense as the core right", bear was in no way decided except to the extent that tea leaves are worth reading.
  #15  
Old 11-28-2010, 6:25 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I love it when 2A court battles make it into mainstream media. I'll like it even better when the ruling comes out too! Thanks for the heads up Ed.
__________________

  #16  
Old 11-28-2010, 6:47 PM
craneman's Avatar
craneman craneman is offline
Gold Member...Oh Behave!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

I have read, as well as made my own comments on the article. Aside from a few "sheeple" who obviously have an irrational fear AND a superiority complex, I think the overall majority of opinions of non-calgunners is very positive. Kinda suprising actually.
  #17  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:04 PM
mikepiet's Avatar
mikepiet mikepiet is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 91
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I wish Bill Wiese was my neighbor. I'd love to just sit with him and chat over some brews. His posts here have taught me so much since I became a gun owner last year.

PM
  #18  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:25 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,891
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikepiet View Post
I wish Bill Wiese was my neighbor. I'd love to just sit with him and chat over some brews. His posts here have taught me so much since I became a gun owner last year.

PM
Next time you're in San Jose offer to buy him a nice steak dinner, and I'm sure you would catch his attention...
__________________
  #19  
Old 11-28-2010, 8:58 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,208
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default two weeks

It will really be TWO WEEKS till we have a ruling.

Nice Christmas present for us.


Nicki
  #20  
Old 11-28-2010, 9:08 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Wish the Soviet Union Trib (LOL first time I've heard that one) would have waited two weeks to get the facts straight from the ruling of the judge...
  #21  
Old 11-28-2010, 10:08 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

The best part was that the Sheriff's many illegal policies are memorialized for all the readers to see... They'll be reading more about it sometime in the near future.
  #22  
Old 11-29-2010, 8:06 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,726
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

The UT did a decent job on this article, and it's a very lengthy writeup (not a two paragraph quicky they shove in the back page). And it has a little step by step for getting a permit. Maybe not a perfect article but I'll take it.

Now if I can get them to stop dropping spam on my driveway...
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
  #23  
Old 11-29-2010, 8:23 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
It will really be TWO WEEKS till we have a ruling.

Nice Christmas present for us.


Nicki

A nice early Christmas present for us, that is.


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
  #24  
Old 11-29-2010, 9:31 AM
Glock21sfsd Glock21sfsd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Susanville
Posts: 408
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks Ed. Its a good read and some of those comments are rediculous I read them and was laughing at them. Some people just dont get it.
__________________
Jeffery Overman
  #25  
Old 11-29-2010, 10:15 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,955
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
I thought the two rulings by the supreme court did NOT limit self-defense to the home... can anyone clarify that for me? The article mentioned they did.
Both the Brady Campaign and LCAV continue to insist that the rulings of SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald only protect the possession of arms in the home.

The NYT parroted the argument of the Brady Campaign here:

Quote:
Despite the decision’s enormous symbolic significance, it was far from clear that it actually posed much of a threat to the most common types of gun regulations. Justice Scalia’s opinion applied explicitly only to “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and it included a number of significant qualifications.
In a press release responding to the McDonald ruling.Paul Helmke stated again:
Quote:
“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.
LCAV maintains:
Quote:
In a radical departure from its previous interpretation of the Second Amendment, the [Heller] Court held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage law (which had no exception for self-defense).
and

Quote:
As it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the Second Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and that a wide variety of gun laws are constitutionally permissible.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #26  
Old 12-02-2010, 10:45 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,160
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyous68 View Post
I thought the two rulings by the supreme court did NOT limit self-defense to the home... can anyone clarify that for me? The article mentioned they did.
The McDonald and Heller cases were specifically about being able to keep a firearm in the home for self defense. So that's what the judges ruled on. Its not that they said it was limited to in the home, its that they said Yes the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self defense, Yes you can keep a handgun in your home, No the states/counties/cities can't ban them. They basically said you have the right to Keep and Bear arms while only rulling on the Keep side, leaving defining the Bear side for later.
__________________
Dev blog for the MMO game I'm developing 'Broadside: Perilous Waters'
https://broadside-game.blogspot.com/
  #27  
Old 02-22-2014, 8:59 AM
FormerCalifornian FormerCalifornian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Good Job, Ed!

Ed:

I am in town (San Diego), visiting relatives for the weekend (I moved from here--my home town--back in 2005) when I saw the article in the UT on how my old boss didn't appeal the CA courts! Nicely done. As a former SD County Deputy Sheriff and a law abiding citizen, who, also like you, carries CCW permits in multiple states, I THANK YOU on behalf of the good citizens in the soon-to-be-better State of California!

You are our hero for standing up for this!

Thank you.

FormerCalifornian (living in the Great States of Texas and Florida!)

P.S. Someday we'll also be in a motorhome living part of the year here in SD County! How could anyone not love it here!
  #28  
Old 02-22-2014, 9:08 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,543
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Holy necrothread Batman!
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
  #29  
Old 02-22-2014, 9:09 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,543
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
It will really be TWO WEEKS till we have a ruling.

Nice Christmas present for us.


Nicki
Three years & two months...
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
  #30  
Old 02-22-2014, 12:08 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,222
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Lots of current threads one could add a comment to - kindly do not revive really old ones.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Closed Thread

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 10:40 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.