Galt's Gulch

We finally won one in California!!

Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 10 months ago to Legislation
46 comments | Share | Flag

Either the looters were sleeping at the switch, or the 9th circuit somehow got a bit of common sense! Time to go to the range... and celebrate!!!
SOURCE URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-tosses-californias-concealed-weapons-rules-22504165

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ root1657 10 years, 10 months ago
    As a San Diegan let me say it's not all lefties out here. If you look at the county by county maps, CA is a red state with small pockets of blue that like to think it's their state.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go file for a permit that I may or may not ever choose to use, but I'll affirm my right to have it. :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 10 months ago
      You are right. Most of California by area is quite red. I live in a usually red district, barely elected a Demo last time to Congress. The socialist belt is along the coast - basically San Fran Bay Area, LA area and Sac area.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by fivedollargold 10 years, 10 months ago
    No matter how this ultimately turns out, pretty amazing for CA.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 10 months ago
      I agree, that ANY judicial panel in the Free Democratic Socialist People's Republic would side with the constitution and against the power-grab propoganda machine in Sacramento and the Beltway is pretty... spectacular. Gives me some hope that the pullmonger party may be losing its absolute grip on the leftist coast... much to the relief of those who have been there more than 30 years...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 10 years, 10 months ago
    Well truth is that the right to bear arms is the right for civilians to level out government in gun control, so the measures where truly wrong saying that only police can approve the permits. The Constitution approves, ´nuff said. As for guns in general, I´m not really for bearing arms myself. But if police are aloud to carry them, civilians should as well. Otherwise, the dogs outnumber us! Repression can be an ugly thing, as we all know. True power doesn´t come from force, but from will.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
    This is the small panel type ruling (just 3 judges). If I remember correctly, this can be appealed to the full court at which time the other wacko's are likely to "right this wrong."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by mminnick 10 years, 10 months ago
      Small panel is appealable to the full court. It is also appealable to the supreme court (I think, my law is really weak on this)
      But I have another question. Pardon my ignorance but doesn't the constitution and Bill Of rights determine what the federal government can and cannot do. If this is the case, can a state impose restrictions? I have never been able to figure this out. Help?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
        The 14th Amendment which applies directly to the states, changes rights to 'privileges and immunities', which are different. Privileges and immunities are granted, rights are inherent.

        The difficulty with the application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the Federal government is the authority the Supreme Court granted to itself i 1803, to allow interpretation. The best example to me is with the 4th. It states it's purpose is to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures The SC determined that if there are unreasonable, there also must be reasonable and has applied that argument since sometime in the 20' or 30's as the result of problems in enforcing Prohibition.

        The state may not impose more restrictions on rights than the Constitution, but it may impose more restrictions on it's law enforcement.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
          Marbury v. Madison was a blatant power grab. It must be reversed via constitutional amendment.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
            Yes to the power grab. There are quite few legal scholars that even argue that Marbury doesn't even say what is claimed of it, but there's no avenue or venue available to challenge it. It appears that it can only be challenged through a constitutional amendment and I don't think that's going to happen.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
        On those specific issues that are enumerated in the Constitution and amendments, the answer is NO, states cannot enact laws that subvert those rights.
        What the SC has said is that the rights are not absolute and that it is permissible for states to enact "reasonable" restrictions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by mminnick 10 years, 10 months ago
          So SCOTUS has said they are absolute for the federal government, but states my enact reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms.
          OK got that. So who defines reasonable - the various state legislatures, the state and/or federal courts or the people? Clearly it is not the people. So it must be the state legislatures or the courts, or both with the courts having the lst say. From this I take it there is no uniform standard as to what Keep and bear arms means. It varies from state to state and court to court. Is that about how it goes?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
            Ultimately, any restrictions that get challenged wind their way to the SC, who, if they choose to take the case, renders a decision. So, they ultimately are the final arbiter of what is "reasonable."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by DragonLady 10 years, 10 months ago
      Every case that is appealed to a federal appellate court gets a 3 judge panel, If a party wishes. he may file a motion for argument to be heard by all active sitting judges (called an en banc hearing). The judges then vote as to whether or not there is legal merit to having the full court hear the argument. Not many cases are granted a full court hearing. Or the losing party can file a petition for certiori with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justices then decide if the legal issues warrant a Supreme Court hearing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 10 months ago
        Problem is, granting Certiorari is fairly rare... however... being a hot button, they may pick it up... Just glad we have some justices on SCOTUS that are not Obama Rollover Apointees for this one!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 10 months ago
    Fantastic! Common sense and rule of law may be making a comeback. With the new mayor of San Diego one wonders what will be next...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 10 months ago
      It was not long ago that Cal was a Red State and that includes San Diego, for generations a Red State bastion. Recent elections are something of an anomaly. Many Cal counties are 2-1 Red and even 3-1 Red. Rural Cal is as Red as Utah and Idaho.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 10 months ago
        Hello lostsierra,
        Michigan's rural areas are the same way. Unfortunately, the large cities are dominated by progressive hacks and their population is a large enough voting block to be ruinous...
        regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 10 months ago
        If not more so... ;-) Were it up to us, we'd secede from California.. oh wait, we're trying to do just that! Problem is - the urban Californian looter majority don't like that we are telling them "good luck without us"... they don't like having their resource grab threatened.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by hoghead44 10 years, 10 months ago
    This is the most unstable appeals court in the country, There have been more Ninth Circuit ruling overturned by SCOTUS than any other court.
    If you want gun rights you need to move to AZ. We have no permit carry concealed or not and law enforcement does not mind that. Other than Phoenix, there is less crime in the rest of state, only 2%.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 10 months ago
      It's progress... Which is better than regression.

      Anyway, IIRC AZ has only had permit-less concealed carry for 3 years now, and before that Governor Nutpolitano vetoed almoat every law crossing her desk that would have improved gun rights there. (So is it any wonder she's now chancellor of the University of California System, living in Berlekey??)

      Strangely enough, I don't recall a huge uptick in gun-related homicide and violence since they allowed permitless carry... the media would NEVER publish this... but it goes to prove the AASIAPS* postulate.

      (* - An Armed Society is a Polite Society)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 10 months ago
        * You got that right. Am a gold miner, mine owner and we all are often armed. And polite to each other. On occasion I have escorted armed poachers, also called claim jumpers, off my own and othe'rs mines while armed myself. The .45 Colt Blackhawk on my hip eliminates arguments and insures good manners on both sides. See to believe!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hoghead44 10 years, 10 months ago
        Exactly, you do not know if the individual that you having road-rage with is packing. I like Brewer, she is not perfect, but better than Napolitano. She fits right in the People's Republic. Moved over a year ago and do not miss it at all.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by libravin 10 years, 10 months ago
    We had areferundum in the voting box to secede from NYC and 65% of staten island er 's said,...lets do this and you know what happened, the first committee the politicion's cut was ...you guessed it ' the secessioncommitee'
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 10 months ago
    Re Cal: last year in a special election a conservative-libertarian type Repub won an election in a Hispanic district in Southern Cal. You have to know how to market yourself and your ideas. Most have no clue how to do those things. Rand fans as a group are about the most clueless at marketing I've ever seen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
      Too harsh. Most libertarians don't believe in imposing on others, thus they feel no need to "market themselves."
      Big difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 10 months ago
        Marketing is not imposing. Big error. Libertarians and Objectivists have been big failures in marketing ideas for decades. Your ignorance is typical of the problem, not the solution. Get a marketing 100 text book and start at the beginning.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
          By imposing, I mean running for political positions. We libertarians believe that everyone should be basically free to do as they please so long as it doesn't harm others. Thus, why would I seek elective office the very reason of which is to impose restrictions on others? If I believe in liberty I'm certainly not going to seek to restrict it for others.

          And, oh, btw, marketing is research, what you are describing is called "sales." I'm not ignorant and know the difference.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo