If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Looks like California is going to get a lot more polite. Or something   (sfgate.com) divider line 404
    More: Interesting, California law, San Francisco County Superior Court, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

10340 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 04:54:15 PM
When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:56 PM
No texting in movie theatres!
 
2014-02-13 05:02:06 PM

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.
 
2014-02-13 05:03:56 PM

James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.


But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?
 
2014-02-13 05:09:34 PM
Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.
 
2014-02-13 05:29:47 PM
Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread
 
2014-02-13 05:38:54 PM

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


And that sums it up nicely.
 
2014-02-13 05:44:02 PM
So I've read a couple of different articles about this, and what I get from it is that nothing really changed except in San Diego county, where, in addition to a waiting period and mandatory safety training, you were required to prove that you had immediate need to defend yourself with a carried gun.

It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.
 
2014-02-13 05:47:08 PM
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns

"Hmm, I see hear you once rented "SEX STARVED fark SLUTS #22: STINKY WHITE WOMEN". Application denied."
 
2014-02-13 05:51:59 PM

fusillade762: State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns

"Hmm, I see hear you once rented "SEX STARVED fark SLUTS #22: STINKY WHITE WOMEN". Application denied."


I am saddened by the fact that the funny button has not yet made an appearance in this thread.
 
2014-02-13 06:16:28 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


I will shoot you in the face
 
2014-02-13 06:18:07 PM
I don't have enough popcorn in the world to keep reading what will follow in this thread.
 
2014-02-13 06:18:41 PM
Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!
 
2014-02-13 06:19:27 PM
Activist judges do suck, don't see what that has to do with this ruling though.
 
2014-02-13 06:19:52 PM
I'm Californian, and a "lib" by Fark standards - I have no problem with this. Anybody who's rich or famous can get one anyway.
 
2014-02-13 06:20:21 PM
So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.
 
2014-02-13 06:22:08 PM

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


B-b-b-but the comma!  That comma means that the 2nd Amendment totes doesn't protect a personal right, rather a collective right!
 
2014-02-13 06:22:37 PM
I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).
 
2014-02-13 06:22:54 PM
Yeah, I think we know what happens next. Rivers of blood, piles of bodies, dogs/cats living together.

/ yawn
 
2014-02-13 06:23:22 PM
Someone may have to update that color-coded map. Other than that, everything will be ok.
 
2014-02-13 06:23:37 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread

I will shoot you in the face


If you were clear across the continent I'd ignore that

/but you're actually close enough to stalk me
//now I need a CCW permit
 
2014-02-13 06:24:35 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.


As a Californian, I agree.
 
2014-02-13 06:24:50 PM
i184.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 06:25:50 PM
The dissenting spokes-judge (Judge Sidney Thomas) still holds the liberal bias against law abiding citizens and their 2nd Amendment arms bearing rights and those non-law-abiding folks who will still carry concealed weapons regardless of their felonious past/ domestic violence misdemeanoring, or any stinking paperwork from the County Sheriff... so no big change in LA, Oakland, or other neighborhoods beset by drug trafficking, gang warfare or other murderous intent...  so, no, I wouldn't take that midnight to 8am gas station cashier job!
 
2014-02-13 06:30:06 PM

crotchgrabber: Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.

As a Californian, I agree.


You Californians deserve to have Bieber.
 
2014-02-13 06:32:51 PM

PowerSlacker: crotchgrabber: Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.

As a Californian, I agree.

You Californians deserve to have Bieber.


We seem to already have him. Doesn't seem to matter either way. Besides, he hangs out in the gross end of the state.
 
2014-02-13 06:34:58 PM
i would like to vote for 'something"
 
2014-02-13 06:36:26 PM
This isn't the only 'bear' case that is winding its way through the courts. There are a couple others further along. Look for SCOTUS to take up a concealed carry case as early as its next term.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:16 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).


I must live in a bubble. A bubble that is on a main street, six blocks north of Oakland, CA.

In all the years that I've lived in this area, I've never once know anyone who has been the victim of a crime where having a carry permit would have helped. In 20 years of living in urban areas, I've known only one couple who were asleep during a home invasion, and only woke up as the tweekers started beating on them in their bed. They didn't have a gun, but neither did the tweekers, who ran off before doing any serious bodily harm.

I always wonder about social circles where many people are involved in, or victims of, violent crime.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:20 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.


That constitutional 'the people'-type stuff is a real biatch when you disagree with it, isn't it?

Any thoughts on any of those other obnoxious amendments?
 
2014-02-13 06:38:21 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Contrabulous Flabtraption: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread

I will shoot you in the face

If you were clear across the continent I'd ignore that

/but you're actually close enough to stalk me
//now I need a CCW permit


Hey did your bar ever get the stuffed wolverine or whatever it was back?
 
2014-02-13 06:40:13 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: This isn't the only 'bear' case that is winding its way through the courts. There are a couple others further along. Look for SCOTUS to take up a concealed carry case as early as its next term.


Oops, now with linkage.
 
2014-02-13 06:40:53 PM

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


This.
 
2014-02-13 06:42:56 PM

AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?


The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.
 
2014-02-13 06:47:26 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


The activist judges are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits.  The 9th essentially said as much, excerpt from the decision below:

9th Circuit
We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons. First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home. Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 605 (examining the post-ratification interpretations of the Second Amendment because "the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification" is "a critical tool of constitutional interpretation" (emphasis omitted)), with Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (noting that the court was "not inclined to address [text, history, tradition and precedent] by engaging in a round of fullblown historical analysis" and relying on the Second Circuit's conclusion that "[h]istory and tradition do not speak with one voice" (quoting Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91)); Woollard, 712 F.3d at 874-76 (declining to "impart a definitive ruling" regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right), and Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91 (refusing to look at "highly ambiguous history and tradition to determine the meaning of the Amendment"). As a result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes.

There is more, see page 67 in the ruling, and the footnote on the bottom of 67 carried to 68.

It will be interesting how this plays out.  The majority of the urban counties (aside from Sacramento) in CA have the same policy as San Diego.

The funny/sad/ironc thing about this is it may not have happened without the unloaded-open-carry nitwits pissing all the soccer moms off.  The original case lost in part, because according to the judge at least, unloaded-open-carry fulfilled the "Bear" portion of the 2nd.  CA banning all open carry in urban areas took that off the table.

We have a big circuit split now, with 7th and 9th saying "bear arms" means "bear arms", and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clinging to the pre-Heller bear-only-means-militia.  Hopefully this will finally get SCOTUS to take a case, Drake v. Jerejian has been filed, regarding New Jersey's nearly identical CCW Good cause policy to CA.
 
2014-02-13 06:52:00 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-13 06:53:38 PM
Make a bunch of stupid knee jerk reaction laws, get a knee jerk reaction ruling in court that undoes the BS and moves the bar back a few steps. Maybe in 50 years we'll be able to restore all the "rights" that have been eroded.
 
2014-02-13 06:54:47 PM

LoneWolf343: The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.


Yea, see... that's the deal. If people want it changed, they need to change it. It specifically allows for a process to do just that. If people don't like the Second Amendment... draft legislation, have all those votes, put it down in black and white with a number in front of it, and staple these new rules to the corner of it if need be. 'Reinterpretation from a previously acceptable meaning' is not change.

Personally, I'd like to put a little rework on that 1st Amendment, but just grandly announcing that "Everything is ok. It's changed now because we're going to do it like this instead." doesn't get the job done.
 
2014-02-13 06:56:35 PM
FTA:
Martin Mayer, a lawyer for statewide organizations of law enforcement officers, endorsed Thomas' view. He said the ruling would lead to a proliferation of guns on the streets.
"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ...It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."


Ahem, 36% is not a majority.   1540 total killed 2003 - 2012, 564 shot. More are killed in vehicle-related accidents than are shot.

As for the "domestic incident" - wouldn't most of those take place INSIDE the home, where the permit doesn't apply?

Google-fu on non-fatal assaults was weaker.
 
2014-02-13 06:57:42 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Hey did your bar ever get the stuffed wolverine or whatever it was back?


Naw... DFG kept it, the bestids

/they took the dead chupacabra, too
//they're just no fun at all
 
2014-02-13 06:59:47 PM
the money is in the banana stand:
*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.

You realize, right, that neither marriage nor religion or mentioned in the constitution?
 
2014-02-13 07:01:47 PM
The stripping of rights is slowly being reversed as people realize the FUD on the 2nd amendment was never justified. Now we need to do the same thing about our other rights.
 
2014-02-13 07:06:42 PM

Itstoearly: the money is in the banana stand:
*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.

You realize, right, that neither marriage nor religion or mentioned in the constitution?


did you really just say that religion isn't mentioned in the constitution?

read the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
2014-02-13 07:11:20 PM
My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland
 
2014-02-13 07:14:38 PM
Get ready to add CA and HI to the shall-issue states. Take note, other may-issue states/localities.
 
2014-02-13 07:17:09 PM
All this does is remove the arbitrary issue of permits to campaign donors and famous people.

Making the rules non-subjective is not a bad thing.
 
2014-02-13 07:17:40 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.


I said WHAT?!  and then I remembered what website I was on...
 
2014-02-13 07:17:50 PM

LoneWolf343: AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?

The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.


Yes it has, why don't liberals go through the defined method of changing it rather than trying to twist new meanings out of old established words?
 
2014-02-13 07:18:12 PM
"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ...It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."

And since domestic violence takes place, you know, at home then the concealed carry rule would have absolutely no effect in deterring this and your comment is totally irrelevant.
 
2014-02-13 07:19:55 PM
tea baggers and deniers.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report