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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:37 AM
PoorRichRichard's Avatar
PoorRichRichard PoorRichRichard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Berdoo
Posts: 2,703
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default What does today’s (6/23/22) Supreme Court ruling mean for us in California???

In particular those counties that are much more reluctant to give out concealed carry permits?
__________________
1A - 2A = -1A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
If I had a nickel for every gender that exists...
...I'd have $0.10.
Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.
--- Dan Bongino
Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Some liberals are evil people out to control others. (Hillary, Pelosi, et.al.)
Many liberals are lemmings and will follow whomever espouses what they 'feel'.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:42 AM
9Cal_OC's Avatar
9Cal_OC 9Cal_OC is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: OC
Posts: 4,248
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Nothing yet.

We hope some CLEOs will be swayed by the decision and issue accordingly (Los Angeles for one). The rest, will likely have to be taken to court to follow the SCOTUS decision.
__________________
Freedom isn't free...

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:42 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This can't be in the California forum since these comments will be about CALIFORNIA? While SCOTUS made the decision, everyone in California knows there are unique and distinctive things California will do about it.

All that happens now is fewer people will look for it here and the comments will become jumbled up with cross-posts about national impacts and not those related to just California.

Do we not have forums for Semi-Auto Rifles vs Handguns? Aren't they all firearms?



.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:44 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 528
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think this section will be used to justify a ban on open carry of long guns in cities.

Quote:
The Statute’s prohibition on going or riding “armed” obviously did not contemplate handguns, given they did not
appear in Europe until about the mid-1500s. See K. Chase,Firearms: A Global History to 1700, p. 61 (2003). Rather, it
appears to have been centrally concerned with the wearing of armor. See, e.g., Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III,
1330–1333, p. 131 (Apr. 3, 1330) (H. Maxwell-Lyte ed. 1898); id., at 243 (May 28, 1331); id., Edward III, 1327–
1330, at 314 (Aug. 29, 1328) (1896). If it did apply beyond armor, it applied to such weapons as the “launcegay,” a 10- to 12-foot-long lightweight lance. See 7 Rich. 2 c. 13 (1383); 20 Rich. 2 c. 1 (1396).
The Statute’s apparent focus on armor and, perhaps, weapons like launcegays makes sense given that armor and
lances were generally worn or carried only when one intended to engage in lawful combat or—as most early violations of the Statute show—to breach the peace.
Perhaps we need a Lance Corporal to weigh in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:47 AM
ProRoad's Avatar
ProRoad ProRoad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 93
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Im sure each County/City will have their own decisions. In LA County, Villanueva already stated he would respect the courts decision, so I hope it breaks the log jam. Though statewide I expect the DOJ will apply a drag their feet approach to their part in the process. (uneducated opinion only)
__________________
Utah CCW Active.
GC: Don't need one!
LA County CCW Timeline.
Application: June 11th, 2021
Call for interview: Feb 2nd, 2022
Interview, Live Scan, FBI. Feb 21st
CA Cleared: March 8th.
Firearms Cleared: May 14th.
Firearms Training: May 14th.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-23-2022, 8:53 AM
Rogerbutthead's Avatar
Rogerbutthead Rogerbutthead is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,988
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So the Supreme Court stated that "May" issue states had to follow "Shall" issue rules on CCWs - but the ban on open carry in New York State was not discussed.

Is my understanding correct?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:11 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

In California (not doom and gloom but rather-reality):

It becomes "Shall Issue IF"

Getting a permit will become more difficult, don't kid yourselves.

1. Expanded moral qualifications.

California will put red flag on steroids into place. The typical BG checks will go after finding anyone who thinks you shouldn't own a gun much less carry one. During a BG that isn't really hard to do depending how a question is asked. Still, one person gets to decide if you get a permit. Now, with some think-tank at UC Davis getting into all the gun reg data what stops them from finding those who think almost anyone they know shouldn't have the right to carry? This is just the beginning.

2. The state will begin to subsidize metal detectors for any woke business that wants to restrict carry in that business. More woke businesses will be putting up "No Firearms" signs. Expect that to happen right away and while those signs don't have the force of law they do allow them to ask you to leave and if you don't have you arrested for trespassing. Then, once that happens - no more carry for you and even no more guns.

3. California will designate more places where carry if prohibited. While the decision stated that saying all places can't be designated as no carry the lists can be expanded to cover far more areas than they do now. The effect will be you can't leave your house to go to so many places it becomes impractical.

4. Far more scrutiny how you carry or transport firearms and which ones qualify for carry. There is nothing in the decision that says the State can't restrict which firearms qualify for carry. Why else did POTUS talk about 9mms? They knew this decision was coming down the way it did, not the emphasis will be on what type of gun, what caliber etc - especially in California.

5. Red Flag on steroids. It's already starting. Talking head newscasters are telling everyone to make that call. This will become a full court press. Have a disagreement with a neighbor? One phone call and by the time due process is a reality you'll have already been denied all 2nd/A rights. This is just the beginning in California.

There are a million reasons to be thrilled with this decision but it doesn't do the one thing that was needed - permit-less and constitutional carry. Yes, the decision was limited by the limited focus of the case but that doesn't mean anything to California.

It will be many years, maybe a decade or more before lawsuits address all the ways some states will use to get around the decision.

Am I thrilled with the decision? Sure, it was the best outcome given the limitations of the case but reality in California is far removed from what the case does in other states. By the time challenges to make any changes are done, you, me and everyone else here will either be gone or so old it won't matter.





.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:11 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,937
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

We're waiting for an Actual Legal Analysis from Real California Lawyers. CRPA email says such is forthcoming.

Let's wait for that.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:16 AM
L.A. Saiga's Avatar
L.A. Saiga L.A. Saiga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arizona & Alhambra
Posts: 1,063
iTrader: 219 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
We're waiting for an Actual Legal Analysis from Real California Lawyers. CRPA email says such is forthcoming.

Let's wait for that.
Bingo!

Thanks fellerz
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:29 AM
PoorRichRichard's Avatar
PoorRichRichard PoorRichRichard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Berdoo
Posts: 2,703
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
We're waiting for an Actual Legal Analysis from Real California Lawyers. CRPA email says such is forthcoming.

Let's wait for that.
Cool. Thanx man
__________________
1A - 2A = -1A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
If I had a nickel for every gender that exists...
...I'd have $0.10.
Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.
--- Dan Bongino
Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2 View Post
Some liberals are evil people out to control others. (Hillary, Pelosi, et.al.)
Many liberals are lemmings and will follow whomever espouses what they 'feel'.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:32 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I’m
Wondering if our LA County Sheriff will use this as an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of the County board of supervisors and loosen the permit process or lie low until after the election.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:47 AM
redhead's Avatar
redhead redhead is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
We're waiting for an Actual Legal Analysis from Real California Lawyers. CRPA email says such is forthcoming.

Let's wait for that.
Good advice. Looking forward to it. I’ll also read the decision, but it won’t be until later, maybe this evening.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:47 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,959
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Not CA but NY Mayor already stated this morning that NY will up the training requirements so that nobody they don't want armed is armed.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:56 AM
captn-tin captn-tin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fairfield
Posts: 745
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

The same people, Good Guys & bad, will continue to carry concealed no matter what the law. When you need a law NOW, that everyone will adhere to it's only an eternity away.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:02 AM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,236
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Well I hope it means when I need to renew in a few months they don’t care about hearing my good cause again and I can get people to start applying who felt they didn’t have a good cause. But that’s hope. Reality I don’t expect anything to change that fast. I do expect nonsense from CA like trying to make being within 1 mile from a fire hydrant illegal to CCW.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:17 AM
spruce3311 spruce3311 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Mateo County
Posts: 121
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

CCW is fine and all but this part is the biggest win:

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:23 AM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Not CA but NY Mayor already stated this morning that NY will up the training requirements so that nobody they don't want armed is armed.
While a reasonable and rational person can envision realistic ways training requirements could be used as the new obstacle, it is equally reasonable and rational to want people to have skills and/or demonstration of skill prior to carrying. Skills with the firearm, and skill in terms of knowledge of the law regarding using the firearms in self defense. Particularly in places where carry has been prohibited for so long these skills with firearms and knowledge of the law in the context of carry are near non existent.

NO rational person wants to be shot due to someone with zero skills/knowledge suddenly picking up a gun and staring to carry it around. And the anti carry people do have a valid point in that context. I don't want to be shot by some yahoo with no skills or knowledge and I 100% support carry.

The question becomes, and is likely the next battle, what is reasonable in this area? Where is the line?

Something to think about, a reasonable training requirement could be a possible counter to unreasonable expansion of "sensitive places". But I trained, I passed the tests, demonstration understanding of applicable laws, why should I be denied the ability to carry in X place?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:43 AM
Libertarian777 Libertarian777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
While a reasonable and rational person can envision realistic ways training requirements could be used as the new obstacle, it is equally reasonable and rational to want people to have skills and/or demonstration of skill prior to carrying. Skills with the firearm, and skill in terms of knowledge of the law regarding using the firearms in self defense. Particularly in places where carry has been prohibited for so long these skills with firearms and knowledge of the law in the context of carry are near non existent.

NO rational person wants to be shot due to someone with zero skills/knowledge suddenly picking up a gun and staring to carry it around. And the anti carry people do have a valid point in that context. I don't want to be shot by some yahoo with no skills or knowledge and I 100% support carry.

The question becomes, and is likely the next battle, what is reasonable in this area? Where is the line?

Something to think about, a reasonable training requirement could be a possible counter to unreasonable expansion of "sensitive places". But I trained, I passed the tests, demonstration understanding of applicable laws, why should I be denied the ability to carry in X place?
Yeah I know. Hopefully we can all be trained to the level of cops before we are issued our licenses to carry

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nypd-...b093be51bbb978

Only need 1.1% of rounds on target to get your ur carry license. Awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:53 AM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,917
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reading through the ruling, it looks like "self defense; see NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling" is a now a good cause reason for CCW applications. But IANAL.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:17 AM
Worsted Wool Worsted Wool is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
it is equally reasonable and rational to want people to have skills and/or demonstration of skill prior to carrying
I disagree. You have the right to defend yourself based solely on your humanity. It is irrational to restrict that right because some other person wants to decide who is “skilled” enough to exercise that right. No other rights require a demonstration of skill.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:19 AM
Libertarian777 Libertarian777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CZ man in LA View Post
Reading through the ruling, it looks like "self defense; see NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling" is a now a good cause reason for CCW applications. But IANAL.
Yeah but thanks to kavanaugh CCW permit will be shall issue, after you pay a $10k application fee and get 1000 hours of approved training at $200/hr.
You'll also have to renew every 2 years
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:23 AM
Big Chudungus Big Chudungus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Contra Costa Co
Posts: 423
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
I

2. The state will begin to subsidize metal detectors for any woke business that wants to restrict carry in that business. More woke businesses will be putting up "No Firearms" signs. Expect that to happen right away and while those signs don't have the force of law they do allow them to ask you to leave and if you don't have you arrested for trespassing.
.
Wide open retail looting has been "no arrest, no detain" for retail employees for years. Walgreens armed guards are ONLY supposed to protect employees (crazed addicts demanding pharmacy hand over opioids they can't get to), and normally no one is ever arrested for Trespassing if they were in anyway allowed onto property legally in the first place, even if cops show up to escort them off.

However, I'm feeling that a certain type of anti-gun zealot retail employee may feel empowered to attempt an Arrest for Trespassing (because violated STORE RULES) of CCW, including of course confiscating gun to hold for police, etc. This could be very legally interesting, because there is almost unlimited LEGAL cover to do Citizen's Arrest for any misdemeanor in CA last I checked, plus "Shopkeeper Privilege" etc.

In any case, if told to leave because your CCW violates Store Rules, assume they've also called the police and expect a "contact" outside, and that the 911 call painted you as suspected Retail Mass Shooter, and that outside a very few wealthy towns like Los Altos, Walnut Creek and Beverly Hills, police will be closer to Uvalde or Dukes of Hazard than Adam-12.

Some lawyer on Alex Jones was explaining its a myth in USA that when SCOTUS rules on something it has ANY effect on anything outside that individual case unless SCOTUS is clearly legislating from the bench and issuing sweeping edicts like Roe Vs Wade or Gay Marriage. I'm guessing this new ruling is the type that only addresses this one guy's case or at best only what goes on in NY State, and has no teeth beyond this one guy's case because if NY State officials ignore it and you don't get your NY CCW YOU will be still a criminal but no NY State officials will lose a job, much less pay fine or jail. Guessing your only option would be to spend a decade and $100K suing NY State to get money judgement....treble damages for your $92.00 CCW application fee that was wrongly not processed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:30 AM
ScottyXbones's Avatar
ScottyXbones ScottyXbones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 944
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian777 View Post
Yeah but thanks to kavanaugh CCW permit will be shall issue, after you pay a $10k application fee and get 1000 hours of approved training at $200/hr.
You'll also have to renew every 2 years
And the training requirement means you might have to pass the handgun combat master test

“Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation“ is kind of ridiculous as well, what year did “historical tradition” end? The NFA was passed in 1986, is that historical? The roster has been around for 20 years, does that make it historical?

How about banning black people from carrying guns, that was historical, does that now mean it’s a valid form of gun control?

Plus no standard for scrutiny for ccw applicants nor red flags means an issuing agency can potentially look at your social media and see that you clicked “like” on a conservative meme and use that to justify denial. Hmm, maybe just having an account here on calguns could be used.

Moving away from “shall not be infringed“ means now anything goes and there’s no limit to the games these leftist politicians can play.
__________________

Last edited by ScottyXbones; 06-23-2022 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:34 AM
Libertarian777 Libertarian777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyXbones View Post
And the training requirement means you might have to pass the handgun combat master test

“Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation“ is kind of ridiculous as well, what year did “historical tradition” end? The NFA was passed in 1986, is that historical? The roster has been around for 20 years, does that make it historical?

How about banning black people from owning guns, that was historical, does that now mean it’s a valid form of gun control?
ACBs concurrence covers this. She says the opinion does not determine what is historical but she goes on to say 19th century laws don't qualify as longstanding history as regards the original intent.
This opens the door for 1934 NFA repeal.
IANAL
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:10 PM
TheVazha TheVazha is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worsted Wool View Post
I disagree. You have the right to defend yourself based solely on your humanity. It is irrational to restrict that right because some other person wants to decide who is “skilled” enough to exercise that right. No other rights require a demonstration of skill.

Very good point. But it should be noted that this specific right can mean life or death for innocent people.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support CC, but if you’ve observed the general public/tourists at gun ranges, you’d hopefully at least agree that some standard of proficiency should be reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:18 PM
ScottyXbones's Avatar
ScottyXbones ScottyXbones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 944
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian777 View Post
ACBs concurrence covers this. She says the opinion does not determine what is historical but she goes on to say 19th century laws don't qualify as longstanding history as regards the original intent.
This opens the door for 1934 NFA repeal
IANAL
Ooo thank you, that’s excellent

I think I’m in love with ACB now
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:19 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
I’m
Wondering if our LA County Sheriff will use this as an opportunity to poke his finger in the eyes of the County board of supervisors and loosen the permit process or lie low until after the election.
I would bet that he is carefully analyzing all the potentials, and will then choose only that which will best suit him personally.
The rest can go suck it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:32 PM
MindBuilder MindBuilder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 363
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While training seems like a good common sense idea at first, on deeper consideration I think there is very small need for it in order to prevent bad shootings. The vast majority of bad shootings are intentional crimes such as gang wars, robberies, and abusive spouses. Training won't help at all for those cases. For the vast majority of legitimate self defense cases, basic common sense works fine - Don't shoot unless somebody is trying to kill you and you have no other good option. For the small number of the rest of the bad shoot self-defense cases, even training won't enable the right decision fast enough, or at all, and sometimes people make blunders that they don't actually need training to know were wrong. Finally, of the very very tiny fraction of bad shoots that still remain, a pamphlet or video and a quick test will probably cover the vast majority of cases that a training course would help with.

And we must not forget the innocent people who will die if they are deterred by extra obstacles from getting a carry permit to protect themselves or family from criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:35 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I know it's a popular hobby on Calguns for some to exhibit and out-exhibit others, in showing just how smart, astute, savvy, and clairvoyant they may be in offering up extensive itemized bullet point lists in the many ways California legislators, Police chiefs, Sheriffs, and the DOJ can circumvent this decision - but holy crap - even a longtime Calguns member might think some of you guys are outright working for them.

For as much time and volume put into some of these posts of that type, one might even think they were getting paid to do it!

We get it, and we already know and have thought up these same attack points, but simply have no desire to work so hard with our time to drop a load of that here on Calguns and write guidebooks and flowcharts for the anti-2nd Amendment crowds' benefit.

I've seen the point made plenty over the years that "it's not something they haven't been able to think up on their own" and I often agree with that perspective, when open discussion on aspects that are tightly objective poses little consequence.

However, where the issues may still be nebulous and mercurial, like in this scenario, it would be nice if some didn't go to such great lengths to impress upon everyone else how nifty they can be at predicting oponent strategy that they don't also damn near write the playbook and legislation for them.

---
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:37 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No one needs to be a lawyer to understand that despite "shall issue" being read into this decision, that isn't the how most CCW permits works to stop most people from carrying a firearm.

1. Moral character. There is nothing in the decision affecting the sole judgement of a Chief of Police or a County Sheriff from deciding you can't carry a gun outside the home.

2. Psych Evals. Nothing in the decision prohibits or even restrains using such evaluations to refuse a permit application.

3. Type of firearm carried. Nothing in the decision prevents far greater restrictions than already exist from denying a permit application based upon the type, model and caliber (chambering) of gun stated will be used for carry.

4. Nothing in the decision restricts expanding the locations where carry is illegal other than to say that the number of areas can't be so great as to make it impossible to carry.

5. Nothing in the decision prevents requirements to impose something like quarterly qualification, annual psych reviews, zero infractions such as a speeding ticket (where speeding can be argued to be a direct threat to the safety of the population in general) and so on.

Remember something as you listen to what will not be all the highly regarded legal speakers go over this: Who wrote all the gun control laws? Who make things that should be easy to understand so complex that no one does? Who can get together to determine if the sky is blue and end up years in discussing which shade of blue is being considered or if blue isn't actually some shade of green and yellow and who put national attention on what the word "if" means? The same people. Yeah, we all need them from time to time but what is the one thing guaranteed when you get in between two of them?

It will cost you a lot of money
You will more than likely lose something but if you win something it will always be worth less than it cost you to get it and the time you lost during the process is gone forever.

So, in summary, this decision made absolutely certain that the debates will continue for as long as we are around and that having now turned the 2nd/A into a privilege because it upholds restrictions of other kinds, the 2nd has been infringed to such a degree it will never again mean what it was designed and written to be.

More to the point, nothing in California will change. There won't be a sudden increase in permits but just remember that every permit is a reaffirmation that the 2nd/A is now a privilege and not a right.

The type and number of new restrictions and qualifications to carry have just started. We haven't seen anything yet. It's not doom and gloom, it's reality.








.





.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:40 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
I know it's a popular hobby on Calguns for some to exhibit and out-exhibit others, in showing just how smart, astute, savvy, and clairvoyant they may be in offering up extensive itemized bullet point lists in the many ways California legislators, Police chiefs, Sheriffs, and the DOJ can circumvent this decision - but holy crap - even a longtime Calguns member might think some of you guys are outright working for them.

For as much time and volume put into some of these posts of that type, one might even think they were getting paid to do it!

We get it, and we already know and have thought up these same attack points, but simply have no desire to work so hard with our time to drop a load of that here on Calguns and write guidebooks and flowcharts for the anti-2nd Amendment crowds' benefit.

I've seen the point made plenty over the years that "it's not something they haven't been able to think up on their own" and I often agree with that perspective, when open discussion on aspects that are tightly objective poses little consequence.

However, where the issues may still be nebulous and mercurial, like in this scenario, it would be nice if some didn't go to such great lengths to impress upon everyone else how nifty they can be at predicting oponent strategy that they don't also damn near write the playbook and legislation for them.

---
Those opposing the 2nd/A and in general gun ownership have never needed help in finding ways to circumvent rights. They don't look to anyone posting on a forum to get ideas, they have more than anyone here because for them, it's a lifelong goal.

Its ok for legals to dissect text to infinite degrees of meaning yet no one else should?

Please. How do you think we got to where we are? Somehow cheerleading is always ok. No worries, the party will be over by tomorrow when the reality starts to set in.





.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:41 PM
Big Chudungus Big Chudungus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Contra Costa Co
Posts: 423
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBuilder View Post
While training seems like a good common sense idea at first, on deeper consideration I think there is very small need for it in order to prevent bad shootings.
I'd bet any legit study of Self Defense/CCW would show that nothing shows CCW Training statistically does any good, and that people with zero official training and nearly zero casual training are just as good at pulling out a gun and pointing it at someone to end a threat or even shoot someone or at someone, or (illegal) warning shot, to end a threat, and no more likely to do a bad shoot or unlawful "brandish" that fully CCW trained.

And I bet that would even hold if you took into account that someone with CCW Training might be more likely to get in situations.

I'd still welcome Training myself, just saying I'd bet that is what the Stats would say.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-23-2022, 12:59 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 528
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Read the opinion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyXbones View Post
How about banning black people from carrying guns, that was historical, does that now mean it’s a valid form of gun control?
The 14th Amendment is what stopped that. His analysis beginning on page 52 does go through the history of institutionalized racism in gun control. But also concludes that it is prohibited by the 2nd and 14th together.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-23-2022, 1:13 PM
Paperchasin's Avatar
Paperchasin Paperchasin is offline
YOU are next!!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,224
iTrader: 461 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spruce3311 View Post
CCW is fine and all but this part is the biggest win:

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
^^^This right here
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-23-2022, 1:27 PM
chrisw chrisw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: near Sac
Posts: 651
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Well. We know how gavin feels about it

https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNews...62882292871169
__________________
WTB: Beretta a400

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post
Women teachers are "liberated and empowered." They are embolden so much by our current society that they can wave their vagina around like a flag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
I treat all people the same until they open their big mouths and make me feel otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:56 PM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
No one needs to be a lawyer to understand that despite "shall issue" being read into this decision, that isn't the how most CCW permits works to stop most people from carrying a firearm.

1. Moral character. There is nothing in the decision affecting the sole judgement of a Chief of Police or a County Sheriff from deciding you can't carry a gun outside the home.

2. Psych Evals. Nothing in the decision prohibits or even restrains using such evaluations to refuse a permit application.

3. Type of firearm carried. Nothing in the decision prevents far greater restrictions than already exist from denying a permit application based upon the type, model and caliber (chambering) of gun stated will be used for carry.

4. Nothing in the decision restricts expanding the locations where carry is illegal other than to say that the number of areas can't be so great as to make it impossible to carry.

5. Nothing in the decision prevents requirements to impose something like quarterly qualification, annual psych reviews, zero infractions such as a speeding ticket (where speeding can be argued to be a direct threat to the safety of the population in general) and so on.

Remember something as you listen to what will not be all the highly regarded legal speakers go over this: Who wrote all the gun control laws? Who make things that should be easy to understand so complex that no one does? Who can get together to determine if the sky is blue and end up years in discussing which shade of blue is being considered or if blue isn't actually some shade of green and yellow and who put national attention on what the word "if" means? The same people. Yeah, we all need them from time to time but what is the one thing guaranteed when you get in between two of them?

It will cost you a lot of money
You will more than likely lose something but if you win something it will always be worth less than it cost you to get it and the time you lost during the process is gone forever.

So, in summary, this decision made absolutely certain that the debates will continue for as long as we are around and that having now turned the 2nd/A into a privilege because it upholds restrictions of other kinds, the 2nd has been infringed to such a degree it will never again mean what it was designed and written to be.

More to the point, nothing in California will change. There won't be a sudden increase in permits but just remember that every permit is a reaffirmation that the 2nd/A is now a privilege and not a right.

The type and number of new restrictions and qualifications to carry have just started. We haven't seen anything yet. It's not doom and gloom, it's reality.

.
Yes, after the not-quite-euphoric feeling of this morning, after reading the headline stories about this decision & then Thomas' full opinion, all these things posted above have passed in my mind as well. And I agree this is how it will likely go down here in CA.

SCOTUS needs to completely and totally ban the necessity of permits altogether, for either open or concealed carry. And specifically constrain what can be designated a 'sensitive place'. This kind of clear, decisive ruling is the only way to eliminate the endless cycle of tyranny that will continue, and increase, here in CA and in the other deep blue states.

Especially given the looming RF law 'enhancements' and $750M to states , waiting in the wings & about to be passed in the US Senate and signed into law, for existing and new states to 'strengthen'/enact them.

What does give benefit and hope in today's ruling, is the elimination of this insidious '2 step' adjudication process when looking at ALL 2A cases. This will have impact in the years & decades to come for all the appeals and new cases which will be overturned/ruled.

I feel the CCW situation now in CA is similar to the aftermath seen from a famous blackjack player, Ken Uston, who won a New Jersey state Supreme Court case back in 1978, which eliminated the NJ casinos' right to bar a person from playing 21 base only on their level of skill. What happened over the next 40+ years? In NJ and elsewhere nationwide, the rules of 21 and associated table conditions were made much worse and more difficult for the player, which significantly eroded the skilled player's mathematical advantage in the game to the point where the majority of the games are no longer worth playing.

Will California gun owners get some benefit from this regarding CCW's? Probably some. But how much given the nature of the evil driving those who rule here.. who knows.
__________________
Gun Owners of America, Life Member
2nd Amendment Foundation, Life Member
Arizona Citizens Defense League, Life Member
Lone Star Gun Rights, Member
Admin. Glendora Concealed Carry

Last edited by Aragorn; 06-23-2022 at 3:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-23-2022, 3:35 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 991
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

It means things will get much worse and restrictive as the cornered tyrants lash out and continue to play the legal system games.
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-23-2022, 4:07 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
Those opposing the 2nd/A and in general gun ownership have never needed help in finding ways to circumvent rights. They don't look to anyone posting on a forum to get ideas, they have more than anyone here because for them, it's a lifelong goal.
.
Actually, there have been things lifted from posts on Calguns, almost verbatim, that have been added to laws/regulations. Your regdate says 2021, so you may not have been here when it happened but it's been confirmed CA DOJ and people working for anti-gun orgs do read the forum. We really really shouldn't speculate on the best ways to screw ourselves, in places where the enemy can see.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-23-2022, 4:36 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
Actually, there have been things lifted from posts on Calguns, almost verbatim, that have been added to laws/regulations. Your regdate says 2021, so you may not have been here when it happened but it's been confirmed CA DOJ and people working for anti-gun orgs do read the forum. We really really shouldn't speculate on the best ways to screw ourselves, in places where the enemy can see.
Almost verbatim. Who can point to something said that hasn't been said somewhere, someplace by someone else?

Its okay for legal beagles to dissect cases, speculate on possible outcomes, evaluate opposition, defenses and all that? Who do you think wrote all the gun control laws, wrote the regulations? Lawyers. But thats okay, let them speak up and out but anyone else, shhhh, they might hear you.

Speculation leads to discussion which leads to awareness of possibilities which leads to preparation or planning on how to react or act. Let's just not do that cause someone might hear. Every SHTF thread is speculation. If this happens then that might and here is a way to deal with it. Same thing. Lets not be pushed to cowardice or fear to speak up or out.

Of course the forum is monitored, so is every other forum. Whether they lift and add something today vs 6 months from now, tell me the difference other than the 6 months? Somehow no one will think about what might be posted here, that we are some brain trust who can think about things and no one else will come up with it?

We've been telling ourselves the liberals or those wanting gun control are stupid, idiots and incompetents for far too long. their tracks records are better than ours because over time we've lost and they've been winning. As I've said before, winning isn't getting back what you lost before.

Now we're so afraid that we'll self-censor because we think the enemy might be listening? Who needs censorship when out of fear we'll do it ourselves? That is doing exactly what they want us to do, be afraid to say something, be afraid to utter any speculation, any question and thereby give up the thing we all claim to be another right.

My regdate s 2021 ( as if this is a seniority contest or that is when someone starting reading the forum - big assumption there) but I wasn't born then and I've been around long enough to see that none of the progressive/liberal gun control people get their ideas from 2/A supporters, they are gun control people but that doesn't make them stupid. Its when you think you enemies are stupid, inept and plain ignorant that they beat you.

One of the first things I heard after my regdate is "we know what we're doing". Uh huh, and with all the gun control laws in California, how has that worked out? Seems like it was a lot easier to own guns just 15 years ago than today so who knows that they're doing?

When some gun control person says something about guns we know isn't true we call them ignorant or stupid and say things like "see, they don't know anything about guns". That is naivete of the highest order. They know a lot about guns, what they say isn't intended to parade some high level of knowledge, it's paraded to sway those who really don't know and unfortunately a lot of them might own guns despite being liberal or progressive.

Anyone is to believe that if this forum never existed that we'd not have all the gun control laws in California that exist today? If that is so the best thing that could happen is to shut down gun forums because then they wouldn't have any ideas.

Gun control people have been sitting around all this time knowing the lawsuit was pending, SCOTUS picked it up and thought about nothing? They pay people to do nothing but think about this stuff.

I read here once that people shouldn't talk about new products or designs because gun control people would read about it and come up with laws to prevent them from being built/sold whatever. My goodness, really? It makes a difference that someone spoke about something today vs a week, month or year later? The laws gets created anyway.

The point is, self censorship plays into their hands far more than anything said here. It is the perpetration of fear, the thought that saying something is wrong, the concept that something said on a forum is helping an enemy that is about as way out there as it gets.

If the difference between a new gun control law or regulation is what is said on this forum we might as well all sign out, give up out guns and run to our safe spaces because the boogeyman might read what we said.

Yeah, lets be afraid and not talk about something because someone might hear. Then through silence when that thing happens anyway we'll all sit around wondering, how did that happen, never saw that coming.




.
__________________
Don't get stuck on Stupid, read a Sticky!

If all you're going to do is post hearsay who needs to read what you have to say?

Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.
Not losing is not a Victory if everything stays the same.
Winning isn't the only thing, there is also losing.

Last edited by SharedShots; 06-23-2022 at 4:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-23-2022, 4:46 PM
Maxa1 Maxa1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does anyone know If someone is a lawful gun owner in California, but gets denied a CCW, is that denial of CCW used against them in any unrelated civil or criminal cases?
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 6:48 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical