Good news from the Ninth Circuit Regarding Concealed Carry in California

[bobabode]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/9/1536705/-9th-Cir-No-2nd-Amend-Right-to-Carry-Concealed-in-CA

[bobabode]

En banc opinion here. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf

[icenine]

Just another of many good reasons to live in California Bob.

[bobabode]

Just another of many good reasons to live in California Bob.

You betcha! :D

[mpholland]

You do realize that the Ninth Circus Court is the most overturned court in the country. One way or another it will end up before the SCOTUS eventually and Cali will either become an open carry or "shall issue" permit state.

[icenine]

I think the Supreme Court has decreed states can regulate firearms. It may allow open carry but I don't think it will ever force states to mandate it like say gay marriage. I doubt it will take away a state's legislative right to make laws concerning firearms. Besides the GOP is nominating unelectable candidates for the Presidency.

[mpholland]

I believe they will continue to let states regulate firearms to the point where it becomes unconstitutional. To not allow open carry and to restrict concealed carry to the point they have in Cali kind of infringes on the word "bear".

[merrylander]

I believe they will continue to let states regulate firearms to the point where it becomes unconstitutional. To not allow open carry and to restrict concealed carry to the point they have in Cali kind of infringes on the word "bear".

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one. If you read Madison's notes on the development of the Constitution it was all about militias and the Founding Fathers abhorrence of a standing army.

[donquixote99]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is the militia act. Coupled with Article 1 Section 8, that limits army appropriations to two years duration, the Constitution was designed to insure the militias was superior in combination to the standing army.

It was assumed that with the House of Representatives being elected at two-year intervals, no majority that voted the ruinous cost of a large peacetime standing army would survive the next election. This scheme worked too, until after the Korean War.

[nailer]

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one. If you read Madison's notes on the development of the Constitution it was all about militias and the Founding Fathers abhorrence of a standing army.

Having armed militias available for national defense is the first of the three English constitutional rights the second covers. Those three bear arms rights are no longer part of the British constitution. The militia right is not presently a part of ours because the central government is funding the militias and a standing army.

[nailer]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is the militia act. Coupled with Article 1 Section 8, that limits army appropriations to two years duration, the Constitution was designed to insure the militias was superior in combination to the standing army.

It was assumed that with the House of Representatives being elected at two-year intervals, no majority that voted the ruinous cost of a large peacetime standing army would survive the next election. This scheme worked too, until after the Korean War.

It wasn't a militia act and your scheme failed in the War of 1812. The second amendment of our constitution remains in place and is still working as intended.

I like your picture. Just not it's frame.

[Tom Joad]

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one.

I believe that the praise "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says in plain language.

I think it's quite disingenuous of the gun control freaks to twist themselves inside out trying to interpret it as something else.

[nailer]

That's right, but the second is written in anything but plain language. I think the Framers wrote it as a poem that everyone knew the meaning of.

Is that a Washington quote?

The gun freaks thing is all about political power and selling consumer goods.

[merrylander]

I believe that the praise "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says in plain language.

I think it's quite disingenuous of the gun control freaks to twist themselves inside out trying to interpret it as something else.

Tom you omitted the first part that explains why the people need to bear arms. Others have said it was also so that the southern slave owners could arm themselves against a slave uprising as had already occurred on a slave ship.

[merrylander]

That's right, but the second is written in anything but plain language. I think the Framers wrote it as a poem that everyone knew the meaning of.

Is that a Washington quote?

The gun freaks thing is all about political power and selling consumer goods.

I realize that most Americans have trouble with the English language but it is hardlle that obtuse.

[nailer]

Tired old insult duly noted, old man. :)

[nailer]

Tom you omitted the first part that explains why the people need to bear arms. Others have said it was also so that the southern slave owners could arm themselves against a slave uprising as had already occurred on a slave ship.

Self defense is indeed the second bear arms right.

[merrylander]

Self defense is indeed the second bear arms right.

I see then the slaves were supposed to accept their servitude?

[nailer]

Slaves were property, not servants.

[merrylander]

Tired old insult duly noted, old man. :)

It was Winston Churchill that brought this to my attention. :)

[nailer]

Okay, it's a tired ancient insult.

[mpholland]

My stance on the second amendment is duly noted in many old threads here, but is irrelevant to my posts in this thread. In the future, the need for a militia may well get the second amendment amended. At this point in time though, as it is written and understood by the SCOTUS I believe the 9th court has ruled unconstitutionally.

[merrylander]

Having lost a nephew to a senseless hunting "accident" my views on guns may differ. Since my Aunt and Uncle married late in life he was their only child.

[Boreas]

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one. If you read Madison's notes on the development of the Constitution it was all about militias and the Founding Fathers abhorrence of a standing army.

Don't forget slave patrols.

[Boreas]

I believe that the praise "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says in plain language.

I think it's quite disingenuous of the gun control freaks to twist themselves inside out trying to interpret it as something else.

You left out the first clause, TJ. Just like you gun fetishists always do.

[Boreas]

Slaves were property, not servants.

2/5 property, 3/5 servant.

[Boreas]

It was Winston Churchill that brought this to my attention. :)

He never addressed which of us was getting it wrong.

[Pio1980]

I believe that the praise "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says in plain language.

I think it's quite disingenuous of the gun control freaks to twist themselves inside out trying to interpret it as something else.

My problem with this is that it would give the village idiot access to tactical nuclear weapons. As it is with the surfeit of firearms, this is already reality, short of easy access to nukes.
Anything beyond basic firearm weaponry for self defence, hunting, and, target sport for responsible persons has little practical application in a civilian setting, tactical military type weaponry particularly, surplus or recent to-market examples especially.
What we have now is basically a cash cow conduit to the criminal element benefitting the suppliers to the detriment of the general population that will likely never change, because defending our rights includes us, our families, and our associates serving as unwilling targets in a free-for-all public shooting gallery.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[bobabode]

Well said Steve. Thank you.

[Tom Joad]

Anything beyond basic firearm weaponry for self defence, hunting, and, target sport for responsible persons has little practical application in a civilian setting, tactical military type weaponry particularly, surplus or recent to-market examples especially.

I agree with that. And I'm all for reasonable restrictions.

What I don't like is the State of California hassling me over carrying a garden variety .38, even though I have jumped through the hoops of obtaining valid licenses in two states.

[bobabode]

We have higher standards in California. ;)

[Tom Joad]

We have higher standards in California. ;)

You have unconstitutional standards.

At least one good thing that would happen if Trump is elected.

You gun grabbers would have to STFU and sit in a corner with your faces to the wall for four years.

[Boreas]

I agree with that. And I'm all for reasonable restrictions.

What I don't like is the State of California hassling me over carrying a garden variety .38, even though I have jumped through the hoops of obtaining valid licenses in two states.

Some states have pretty lax requirements, making reciprocity pretty problematic. California's position is quite reasonable.

[Tom Joad]

Some states have pretty lax requirements, making reciprocity pretty problematic. California's position is quite reasonable.

I disagree.

Vermont, which happens to be the most liberal state in the union by the way, has reasonable gun laws.

[bobabode]

You have unconstitutional standards.

At least one good thing that would happen if Trump is elected.

You gun grabbers would have to STFU and sit in a corner with your faces to the wall for four years.

So, stay out of California. :rolleyes:

[Boreas]

So, stay out of California. :rolleyes:

Please!

[nailer]

2/5 property, 3/5 servant.

100 percent property. A servant meeting the voting requirements could vote.

[Boreas]

100 percent property. A servant meeting the voting requirements could vote.

It was a joke.:rolleyes:

[nailer]

Some states have pretty lax requirements, making reciprocity pretty problematic. California's position is quite reasonable.

Unless the Supreme Court opines otherwise.

[nailer]

It was a joke.:rolleyes:

Poor mind reading ability here. Sometimes I need a picture to clue me in. :)

[ZeroJunk]

Good God, now it's about slaves and having your own nuclear weapon.

Bunch of goof balls.

[Boreas]

I think you guys are missing the point. The 9th Circuit's ruling is specific to concealed carry. It doesn't impinge on anyone's right to own a gun or, for that matter, carry one. It just says that you don't have an automatic right to secrete it on your person.

[nailer]

In this case, would the Supreme Court even care?

[nailer]

Good God, now it's about slaves and having your own nuclear weapon.

Bunch of goof balls.

I'm too irresponsible to own another human, but a miniaturized antipersonnel tactical nuke would be way cool. :D

[Boreas]

In this case, would the Supreme Court even care?

I doubt it. As I understand Heller, it doesn't address concealed carry specifically so there's no conflict.

[Boreas]

I'm too irresponsible to own another human, but a miniaturized antipersonnel tactical nuke would be way cool. :D

I'm holding out for a theater nuke.

And Smoothie, if we're that far beneath your level, you could always just go away.

[mpholland]

I think you guys are missing the point. The 9th Circuit's ruling is specific to concealed carry. It doesn't impinge on anyone's right to own a gun or, for that matter, carry one. It just says that you don't have an automatic right to secrete it on your person.

With the exception that you can't open carry in California, and if you don't live in a "shall issue" county it is almost impossible to get a carry permit without being able to show a need to have one. To me, that is quite limiting to the right to "bear" arms.

[Boreas]

With the exception that you can't open carry in California, and if you don't live in a "shall issue" county it is almost impossible to get a carry permit without being able to show a need to have one. To me, that is quite limiting to the right to "bear" arms.

A limit isn't a prohibition.

[mpholland]

A limit isn't a prohibition.

I disagree. A right is not a privilege. I am OK with most regulation of all the bill of rights, but there should only be reasons for a person not to have one. Next you will have to have a reason to speak freely? Maybe have to have a valid reason for an officer not to search you? Maybe need a reason to worship the deity of your choice?

[Tom Joad]

So, stay out of California. :rolleyes:

Or what little man?

[bobabode]

Or what little man?

You're precious when you get all wound up over not being able carry your penile extender in my home state, Chester. ;)

[Tom Joad]

You're precious when you get all wound up over not being able carry your penile extender in my home state, Chester. ;)

Yeah, that's what I thought.

All mouth and no action.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif.html)

[bobabode]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

All mouth and no action.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif.html)

(head pat) :D Bless your heart.

[icenine]

I disagree. A right is not a privilege. I am OK with most regulation of all the bill of rights, but there should only be reasons for a person not to have one. Next you will have to have a reason to speak freely? Maybe have to have a valid reason for an officer not to search you? Maybe need a reason to worship the deity of your choice?

How far does my right to enjoy owning an automatic weapon extend?
To dead first graders?

The thing driving this insanity is just selfishness. Heck I can't even purchase a smart gun with an electronic pin because the NRA is so paranoid.


The slippery slope argument is bullshit. I mean they have outlawed switch-blade knives and M-80 firecrackers and I can still read and say
whatever I want.

[mpholland]

How far does my right to enjoy owning an automatic weapon extend?
To dead first graders?

The thing driving this insanity is just selfishness. Heck I can't even purchase a smart gun with an electronic pin because the NRA is so paranoid.


The slippery slope argument is bullshit. I mean they have outlawed switch-blade knives and M-80 firecrackers and I can still read and say
whatever I want.

Number one, you have no right to own an automatic weapon. You just introduced that on your own accord.

Number two, my statements are far from insane. I could care less whether we have a second amendment or not. Fact is, at this point in time, we do. The process for eliminating it is called amending the constitution and there are procedures in place for making that happen. Regulating it is fine, but IMO the regulations still have to remain constitutional. If we allow federal courts to let states have their own way with one right, that sets precedent and opens the door to limiting other rights, and the next thing you know, all guaranteed rights will start being limited. This isn't paranoia, it is pretty much a guarantee. If you want to get rid of the second amendment, fine, make it go away, but do it the right way. Precedent is a very powerful tool in the court system.

[donquixote99]

Tom you omitted the first part that explains why the people need to bear arms. Others have said it was also so that the southern slave owners could arm themselves against a slave uprising as had already occurred on a slave ship.

Unless someone can show me primary source on that, I think the slave patrol linkage is modern propaganda. It's such an obvious PR move, to link the 2nd to slavery....

[donquixote99]

Self defense is indeed the second bear arms right.

Sure, there's just lots and lots about 'self defense' in the constitutional text. And hunting too.

[donquixote99]

Poor mind reading ability here. Sometimes I need a picture to clue me in. :)

Funny. I have the very same problem with your posts, from time to time....

[donquixote99]

It wasn't a militia act and your scheme failed in the War of 1812. The second amendment of our constitution remains in place and is still working as intended.

I like your picture. Just not it's frame.

What failed in the War of 1812? The militia as a defense against invading regulars? Yes.

The scheme I suggested that was intended to keep the federal army weak? No, that kept right on working. Congress only went for a big 'peacetime' army after we found ourselves so embarrassed for troops we just about got kicked out of Asia by the North Koreans.

[Oerets]

At the time the 2nd was written, the use of firearms was more as a tool. A survival tool in the sense of putting food on the table. Protection from the indigenous native peoples or those wanting to harm. Much like a ax shovel, little thought of anything else but the next meal or day. Very common for only one in a home. Not the average total in gun owners homes now.

Not like today when the majority of weapons sold in this country are for sport . A foreign concept to the framers of the 2nd. For they would take one look at our times and think WTF are they talking about! They were real men in real tough times. The word poser comes to mind when thinking of today.

Myself whenever I see a @ss with a exposed weapon on their hip. Feel a little afraid of just what can happen. Intimidated and pi$$ed at the same time. Just what is this person telling me?

As one can tell I think more regulation is called for, long over due.


Barney

[icenine]

Number one, you have no right to own an automatic weapon. You just introduced that on your own accord.

Number two, my statements are far from insane. I could care less whether we have a second amendment or not. Fact is, at this point in time, we do. The process for eliminating it is called amending the constitution and there are procedures in place for making that happen. Regulating it is fine, but IMO the regulations still have to remain constitutional. If we allow federal courts to let states have their own way with one right, that sets precedent and opens the door to limiting other rights, and the next thing you know, all guaranteed rights will start being limited. This isn't paranoia, it is pretty much a guarantee. If you want to get rid of the second amendment, fine, make it go away, but do it the right way. Precedent is a very powerful tool in the court system.


So if I bring up automatic weapons I am off base. But suggesting that states should be forced to allow open carry against the will of its own citizens is radical. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in but I am pretty sure that state regulation of firearms by legislation is recognized as legitimate under the Constitution. We can have weapons in our homes here in California no one is stopping us. I just think many people here do not want them at Starbucks.

[nailer]

What failed in the War of 1812? The militia as a defense against invading regulars? Yes.

The scheme I suggested that was intended to keep the federal army weak? No, that kept right on working. Congress only went for a big 'peacetime' army after we found ourselves so embarrassed for troops we just about got kicked out of Asia by the North Koreans.

It was the Chinese Army and our army wasn't close to being just about kicked out and the Korean Peninsula isn't Asia.

A standing army just may have discouraged Britain from it's punitive raids in force. That was the scheme's failure and weak half measures were slowly implemented as a result of the war.

Sorry I can't draw a picture for you. :)

[mpholland]

So if I bring up automatic weapons I am off base. But suggesting that states should be forced to allow open carry against the will of its own citizens is radical. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in but I am pretty sure that state regulation of firearms by legislation is recognized as legitimate under the Constitution. We can have weapons in our homes here in California no one is stopping us. I just think many people here do not want them at Starbucks.

You should read the black letters and not the white in between the print. There is nothing in the second amendment that allows for automatic weapons, and I haven't seen anyone suggesting it did. Also, I didn't say Cali should be an open carry state. State regulation of firearms is legitimate, but it can't be unconstitutional. If you aren't going to allow open carry, then you should allow for a shall issue "concealed carry" state. This really only applies to the coastal areas from Sonoma south, with the exception of San Luis Obispo, where it is almost impossible to get a carry permit if you are an average citizen. I feel it infringes on the right to bear arms. It is only my opinion, and no, I am not an NRA member. I just believe in doing things the right way and not setting dangerous precedents.

[nailer]

Sure, there's just lots and lots about 'self defense' in the constitutional text. And hunting too.

No there isn't.

[donquixote99]

No there isn't.

In that case I fear I must have misunderstood your message #17. Thought you were saying there's a second-amendment based right to self defense.

Do you sometimes like to imply more than you are actually willing to defend?

[donquixote99]

It was the Chinese Army and our army wasn't close to being just about kicked out and the Korean Peninsula isn't Asia.

A standing army just may have discouraged Britain from it's punitive raids in force. That was the scheme's failure and weak half measures were slowly implemented as a result.

Sorry I can't draw a picture for you.

Korea was a more complex series of events than that. The 'kicked out of Asia' phrase was a little bit of exaggeration as there was no immediate threat to eject us from Japan. But I'd say S. Korea was the only place on the Asian mainland defended by US troops at the time, so the US Army, at least, was on the verge of being kicked-off the mainland.

The war went like this:

1. N. Korea, armed by Russia, attacked S. Korea, heedless of the presence of US troops deployed to deter such a move.

2. The powerful surprise attack brushed aside all initial opposition, captured Seoul, and pushed south. The US rushed initially small numbers of unready reserves to the peninsula, but they were not able to contain the N. Korean attack. It looked like S. Korea might be overrun entirely.

3. More US. troops were found, and air and sea assets were brought to bear, finally halting the N. Koreans on the 'Pusan Perimeter,' a small segment of the SE end of the peninsula.

4. A risky but brilliantly successful amphibious invasion N. of Seoul at Inchon led to a general N. Korean collapse. UN forces were able to break out of the Pusan Perimeter, and N. Korean forces were driven back to close to the Yalu-river border with China.

5. A massive Chinese army intervened, pushing the American-led forces back south. Army and Marine units were cut-off in the Chosin reservoir area, but the Marines heroically fought their way out to a port where sea evacuation was possible. The Chinese renewed their attack and drove UN forces south of Seoul for the second time in the war.

6. Truman fired MacArthur. UN forces were able to stop the Chinese, and then counterattack, again retaking Seoul and forcing the enemy into positions corresponding to the current N/S border. Stalemate set in.

Anyway, my whole point it bringing up Korea is that before it, the US Congress had following the historical pattern to rapidly demobilize the army after WWII. No such demobilization occurred after Korea, and the army has maintained large combat ready forces ever-since. There is no longer any question of the federal 'standing army' not being preeminently powerful in the US.

[icenine]

You should read the black letters and not the white in between the print. There is nothing in the second amendment that allows for automatic weapons, and I haven't seen anyone suggesting it did. Also, I didn't say Cali should be an open carry state. State regulation of firearms is legitimate, but it can't be unconstitutional. If you aren't going to allow open carry, then you should allow for a shall issue "concealed carry" state. This really only applies to the coastal areas from Sonoma south, with the exception of San Luis Obispo, where it is almost impossible to get a carry permit if you are an average citizen. I feel it infringes on the right to bear arms. It is only my opinion, and no, I am not an NRA member. I just believe in doing things the right way and not setting dangerous precedents.

Outside of legitimate law enforcement (e.g. retired police officer or bounty hunter) why should all these people be walking around with concealed handguns? And since when are you an expert on what is constitutional? It seems to me if California is comfortable with its existing laws why should we change? I think if there was this big push for lax gun permits we would have
petitions on our ballots demanding open carry or relaxation of concealed carry permits. We are a pretty smart lot down here.
I think letting everyone walking around with loaded weapon is a dangerous precedent myself. That good guy with a gun nonsense if just a big myth.
Maybe that cockroach who killed that beautiful young singer yesterday was from an open carry state or had a concealed carry permit.
Besides anyone can cap somebody who has a gun in their holster anyway.

America will never change. We are fucked up because people are selfish and could care less how many people are killed with guns because of course it did not happen to their children. So I don't why you are scared. You think anyone is going to listen to me?

[nailer]

In that case I fear I must have misunderstood your message #17. Thought you were saying there's a second-amendment based right to self defense.

Do you sometimes like to imply more than you are actually willing to defend?

No, but you often infer what isn't implied.

And the right to bear arms for self defense is a second amendment right.

[icenine]

Thanks for the history lesson.

FWIW, the Federal standing army has been preeminently powerful in the US since the close of the Civil War.

Bullshit.

There was a huge drawdown after WW1.

Now the VA and TRICare, coupled with millions of compensated veterans, will most undoubtably insure the existence of the Federal Government for eternity, along with SS and Medicare on the civilian side. Of course GAO civilians will be along for the ride. We are a justification for your existence Nailer.

[nailer]

And the army was still preeminently powerful in the US after this drawdown. There was also a huge drawdown after WWII and the army remained preeminently powerful in the US.

My existence has nothing to do with your justification. :)

[icenine]

And the army was still preeminently powerful in the US after this drawdown. There was also a huge drawdown after WWII and the army was remained the preeminently powerful in the US.

My existence has nothing to do with your justification. :)

You are a government hack like the rest of us.

[nailer]

And you apparently have a poor opinion of yourself.

[icenine]

And you apparently have a poor opinion of yourself.

no
not really

Whether you disagree with what anyone says or not you don't really stand for anything. You are a cipher. The system is always bad. Nothing is good.
Everything is corrupt. But you are a cog in it at the same time. I don't think you are very fun to be around. You post a lot but are not really saying anything.

I mean right a really good paragraph and explain just what American Fascism means, giving examples. Not one liners no can make any sense out of.

[nailer]

Then don't read my posts.

[icenine]

Then don't read my posts.

the paragraph please.

American Fascism.

[nailer]

Figure it out on your own because I've already explained it for you. Do a little research of the PC historical record.

First though you must disconnect from what Hitler and Mussolini were because American Fascism is not the same thing. And FWIW you, and many other Americans, are dancing the AF goosestep. This doesn't mean you're a fascist. :) In addition, that our political system is run by the two wings of the Capitalist Party is the key point.

[donquixote99]

No, but you often infer what isn't implied.

And the right to bear arms for self defense is a second amendment right.

If i ask real nice will you explain why you think so? Please kindly explain why you think so.

[BlueStreak]

the paragraph please.

American Fascism.

American Fascism is based on the belief that the United States of America is so exceptional, pure and righteous that the rest of the world could not exist, devoid of our preeminence, without devolving into utter chaos and decline. It is the staunch belief that America was chosen by no less than God himself to lead and never follow. Our way is the only right and true way........Whatever it is.

It's why they hate us.

[nailer]

American exceptionalism is indeed being used by American Fascism. Who doesn't love a fighter jet flyover at the ballpark. It's as American as mom and apple pie.

[nailer]

If i ask real nice will you explain why you think so? Please kindly explain why you think so.

I'm okay with your thinking the second doesn't give responsible citizens the right to bear arms for self defense.

[BlueStreak]

American exceptionalism is indeed being used by American Fascism. Who doesn't love a fighter jet flyover at the ballpark. It's as American as apple pie.

Coming from a former Navy jet mechanic it is an awesome thing.........

It's when you see it as a symbol of your countries "God given right" to rule the world that the line is crossed. That's the point you stop being a guy who simply admires awesome aircraft and start becoming a Fascist.

[mpholland]

I'm okay with your thinking the second doesn't give responsible citizens the right to bear arms for self defense.

That isn't up for debate. The SCOTUS has already decided that. The debate now is whether you can do it outside of your home.

[donquixote99]

I'm okay with your thinking the second doesn't give responsible citizens the right to bear arms for self defense.

Whatever your reasons for not being able or willing to offer argument for your point of view at this time, I hope you'll be able to say more in the future.

[BlueStreak]

I'm okay with your thinking the second doesn't give responsible citizens the right to bear arms for self defense.

Because of the first half of the 2nd Amendment that gun nuts love to ignore.............. You know that pesky "....well regulated militia...." part that you won't find on the NRAs lobby wall because it embarrasses them?

[BlueStreak]

That isn't up for debate. The SCOTUS has already decided that. The debate now is whether you can do it outside of your home.

......and where the threshold lies in determining whether a shooting was justified or not. Some folks seem to think it should lie at; "Fucker pissed me off.".:rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

......and where the threshold lies in determining whether a shooting was justified or not. Some folks seem to think it should lie at; "Fucker pissed me off.".:rolleyes:

Some juries in Texas buy that justification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

[nailer]

That isn't up for debate. The SCOTUS has already decided that. The debate now is whether you can do it outside of your home.

I'm pretty sure SCOTUS will say that's each state's responsibility.

[Boreas]

Some juries in Texas buy that justification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

Ah, yes. Another Grand Jury.

[icenine]

Coming from a former Navy jet mechanic it is an awesome thing.........
e
It's when you see it as a symbol of your countries "God given right" to rule the world that the line is crossed. That's the point you stop being a guy who simply admires awesome aircraft and start becoming a Fascist.

I don't think we have ever had anything close to fascism in America.

1. We have never concentrated political power into one person.
2. We have never cancelled elections, or created a one political party state.
3. We have never shut down newspapers, shut down TV stations, nor jailed people as political prisoners.

Of course, how we have dealt with Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries can be viewed as genocidal in some aspects. And FDR put a whole segment of Americans in detention camps just because they were racially different from most Americans. At least we have come to see these incidents stains on our country that should not be repeated.

And like Napoleon when he invaded Russia we like to export our democracy around the world in rather failed attempts at nation building.

However I don't think these things constitute a fascist system in America.
Otherwise we would be allowed to choose between Hillary and Trump this fall.

[Boreas]

I don't think we have ever had anything close to fascism in America.

1. We have never concentrated political power into one person.
2. We have never cancelled elections, or created a one political party state.
3. We have never shut down newspapers, shut down TV stations, nor jailed people as political prisoners.

Of course, how we have dealt with Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries can be viewed as genocidal in some aspects. And FDR put a whole segment of Americans in detention camps just because they were racially different from most Americans. At least we have come to see these incidents stains on our country that should not be repeated.

And like Napoleon when he invaded Russia we like to export our democracy around the world in rather failed attempts at nation building.

However I don't think these things constitute a fascist system in America.
Otherwise we would be allowed to choose between Hillary and Trump this fall.

Your "nevers" aren't integral parts of, or even necessary ingredients of, fascism. Neither is genocide. An expansive foreign policy can be but it's not unique to fascism.

I'll repeat what I've said to you before: you really ought to learn what fascism is about before chiming in here. It isn't about the casus belli for WWII. Otherwise Spain would never have been able to maintain its neutrality.

[Tom Joad]

You left out the first clause, TJ. Just like you gun fetishists always do.

The first clause does not in any way negate the obvious meaning of the second. "well regulated" in the vernacular of the 18th century does not refer to the "regulation" of firearm possession by ordinary citizens.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

[Boreas]

The first clause does not in any way negate the obvious meaning of the second. "well regulated" in the vernacular of the 18th century does not refer to the "regulation" of firearm possession by ordinary citizens.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

What did militia mean then.

[Tom Joad]

What did militia mean then.

From what I've read it meant all able bodied males between 16 and 45.

[Boreas]

From what I've read it meant all able bodied males between 16 and 45.

That isn't what the word means or meant. It's just who was eligible.

[bobabode]

That isn't what the word means or meant. It's just who was eligible.

C'mon John. Don't you realize that you are supposed to parse the words in the 2nd amendment syllable by syllable to devine their true meaning. :rolleyes:

[Boreas]

From what I've read it meant all able bodied males between 16 and 45.

How old are you then? Isn't it long past the time you should have turned in your weapons?

[donquixote99]

The first clause does not in any way negate the obvious meaning of the second. "well regulated" in the vernacular of the 18th century does not refer to the "regulation" of firearm possession by ordinary citizens.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Well-regulated would indicate a militia that is everything a militia should be: well-drilled, with dedicated citizens filling the ranks, and smart, courageous officers in charge, all devoted to the mission of security for the free state.

The founders mention 'well-regulated' because all were familiar with militia units that were anything but. And the War of 1812 showed that the regulation of the militia remained in the main sadly lacking. But the militia clause is not just a wish, its placement in the Constitution makes it authoritative. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in order that a well-regulated militia may exist.

Based on the language of the second amendment, no law can be made regarding keeping and bearing arms that would infringe on the people's ability to form and participate in a well-regulated militia. The 2nd does not require that such a militia exist, but it's existence cannot be precluded by laws against armament.

So, I say the 2nd amendment creates, in effect, a militia test: if a law gives the government the right prevent the armament, or forcibly disarm, a well-regulated militia, it's unconstitutional. If it is harmless to such a militia, it's OK as far as the 2nd amendment goes.

We may reason therefore that persons patently not eligible for militia duty due to any sort of personal defect, would not have the protection of the 2nd. Such defect can include problems with personality or reputation that would render him not acceptable in the ranks. The government can therefore forbid arms to such persons.

The keeping and bearing of arms must be allowed in ways that do not interfere with the well-ordered militia's mission of providing security to a free state. This might be an emergency of civil disorder, insurrection, or terrorist attack that requires militia members to respond rapidly and directly, without the necessity of first assembling at a depot. So there is an obvious rationale for individuals keeping individual infantry weapons at home, and bearing them about in ways reasonable for rapid readiness.

Militia units, together, form a popular army. As such, a well-regulated militia has a reasonable requirement for access to heavy weapons, with the same limits as the army recognizes: what is needed in the army's estimation, and what can it obtain funding for. There is thus no intrinsic limit on the character of militia weapons: if they want and can get a nuke, it's constitutional. This is not to say the law must be silent on such matters. If one cannot shout 'fire' in a wanton and dangerous manner, despite the 1st Amendment, one surely cannot deploy nuclear weapons in a wanton and dangerous manner, despite the 2nd Amendment. The public welfare would certainly demand that strenuous security requirements, and increasingly stringent demonstrations of 'well-regulated' conditions, be met with respect to heavy weapons of all sorts.

Such special weapon regulation would start with fully-automatic individual weapons and grenades being restricted to persons who can show, in the estimation of their well-regulated militia officers or other regular civil authorities, good character, proper training and intent, and the ability to store such weapons securely.

So I am sort of splitting the difference between an 'individual' and a 'collective' right to bear arms. Sort of the heavier the arms, the more collective the right gets.

All this is my own interpretation, and does not exactly reflect what the Supreme Court has said, although I think it's what they should say.

And this is all an exercise in applying the 2nd Amendment as written. I actually have little faith in 'well-regulated militias,' and think the 'militia test' as I suggest the 2nd embodies is not a good test in 21st century America. But until we amend the Constitution, we're stuck with it, in my opinion.

[Tom Joad]

How old are you then? Isn't it long past the time you should have turned in your weapons?

80 is the new 40.

[icenine]

Don't waste intellectual brain cells on Joad. He is a lost cause. You can't fix...well you know what word comes next.

[MrPots]

80 is the new 40.

LOL......... wondered how you were gonna dodge that one....

[Tom Joad]

Don't waste intellectual brain cells on Joad. He is a lost cause. You can't fix...well you know what word comes next.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/1143_neener_neener_neener.gif.html)