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  
•       •       •

10362 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (44 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 08:19:34 PM  

lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)


Many of the homicides were committed without use of firearms or in private residences were no permit was necessary. Additionally, several of the listed "killers" did not actually hold concealed weapons permits; the Violence Policy Center dishonestly conflates "security guard" permits (which only allow carrying when on duty as a security guard) and pistol purchase permits (which do not carry at all) with concealed weapons permits. In several cases, no information relating to any actual criminal conviction could be located. In other cases, no evidence that the killer held any permit at all could be located.

The Violence Policy Center is as valid a source of information regarding firearms as is the National Rifle Association.
 
2014-02-13 08:20:42 PM  

sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?


The Center also includes homicides committed by individuals residing in "may issue" states for whom no information regarding any issued permit is available.
 
2014-02-13 08:20:50 PM  
'Bout farking time.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:22 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money


So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.
 
2014-02-13 08:22:13 PM  

OnlyM3: I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.


Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

But you do know the 1st Amendment -- hey that's before they even talked about guns! -- says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

...and you know that's what we mean when we say "separation of church and state." Because the latter is fewer words than the former. Should we just go with Establishment Clause then? Our point won't change, and won't be any less valid, but maybe you can drop your shenanigans.
 
2014-02-13 08:22:45 PM  

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.


The Founders did not consider the existence of semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines when authoring the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, therefore the Amendment is not applicable to possession of such firearms, unlike the applicability of the First and Fourth amendments to speech transmitted and stored electronically.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:23 PM  

fnordfocus: Considering that OPD has taken essentially no action on the the terms of the Riders settlement over a decade ago, I'm confident that no permits will get issued even if the City and County do lose.


Oh, I have no doubts about them trying to drag their feet on the matter but they would still lose and depending upon how many permit requests they turn down it could be a lot more money than $10 million.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:28 PM  

Dimensio: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

The Founders did not consider the existence of semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines when authoring the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, therefore the Amendment is not applicable to possession of such firearms, unlike the applicability of the First and Fourth amendments to speech transmitted and stored electronically.


Totally agreed!  We should only have, relatively speaking, what they had in the 18th century.  Of course, the flintlock musket was the pinnacle of technology.  So citizens owned the exact same weapons that the military carried in the field of battle.....wait.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:42 PM  
"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth. Why can't we go after handguns, period?   I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it, but people should not have handguns."

- Some total libtard from California
 
2014-02-13 08:30:13 PM  

AngryDragon: Decision sounds pretty definitive. They'll appeal to SCOTUS and get smacked down like DC did with Heller. The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse itself. Then they'll have to be reasonable about it.


Agreed.

My point is, I don't believe California Police Chiefs and Sheriffs are particularly concerned with obeying court orders.
 
2014-02-13 08:31:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: "I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth. Why can't we go after handguns, period?   I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it, but people should not have handguns."

- Some total libtard from California


That seems more like the sentiment of an authoritarian who will readily disregard the Constitution when convenient than a "total libtard".
 
2014-02-13 08:33:50 PM  
Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners
 
2014-02-13 08:35:02 PM  

sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?


Yea... vpc. What a credible site. Here's an interesting tidbit there to look up... check out the Jason Kenneth Hamilton entry. It frequently gets used for 'has anyone ever been killed with an actual automatic weapon' discussions. Except that he didn't have a 'federally registered automatic weapon.' He didn't have a select-fire or full auto at all. They got that part from a witness statement of 'he was shooting really fast'... so naturally, that equates to a registered full auto if you're a site with a clear agenda.
 
2014-02-13 08:40:35 PM  

Finger51: 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


When I applied for mine; I had to list the caliber/ make/ model/ barrel length and serial number; and go to a training class where I shot said weapon to the enjoyment of a firearms instructor... so, buy one first, then apply to carry...

and when you do the back ground check; you also have to list the weapon you are buying; which is one of the issues with the back ground check/ registration = confiscation debate...
 
2014-02-13 08:42:38 PM  

AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners


The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).
 
2014-02-13 08:44:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).


So you're saying we need another recount?
 
2014-02-13 08:47:05 PM  

ElLoco: sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?

Yea... vpc. What a credible site. Here's an interesting tidbit there to look up... check out the Jason Kenneth Hamilton entry. It frequently gets used for 'has anyone ever been killed with an actual automatic weapon' discussions. Except that he didn't have a 'federally registered automatic weapon.' He didn't have a select-fire or full auto at all. They got that part from a witness statement of 'he was shooting really fast'... so naturally, that equates to a registered full auto if you're a site with a clear agenda.


The only one I can think of was a cop that killed someone with a MAC-10 stolen from evidence.
 
2014-02-13 08:49:38 PM  

AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.


Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.
 
2014-02-13 08:50:59 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


I think he's saying that it wasn't along  his ideological lines, therefore, decisions based on ideologies are bad. Unless the decision goes the other way. Then it's ok.
 
2014-02-13 08:56:31 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.


Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.
 
2014-02-13 08:56:40 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


Just pointing out that the 9th Circuit isn't some liberal hippy paradise court as some people seem to be implying.

This does bring into focus why the GOP has been working as hard as they have been to prevent Obama from filling vacant federal judge positions.  The more liberally inclined judges he can stack the courts with, the better the chances are that when something like this comes up the balance is shifted the other way and so with it the result.
 
2014-02-13 08:58:53 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).


How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:09 PM  
Gerry Brown is still governor again right? so makes sense since his aura smiles and never frowns.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:17 PM  

Dimensio: AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.

Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.


It's important to point out that Senator Boxer once had a CCW, which are almost impossible to obtain here in California.  She gave it up when it became publicly known and a political liability.
 
2014-02-13 09:02:51 PM  

OgreMagi: Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.


I suspect that you will next claim that the Bill of Rights has a preamble.

/Encountered a firearm prohibition advocate who actually denied the existence of the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
//She initially rejected an actual picture of the document hosted on a federal website as possibly having been planted by right wing extremists.
 
2014-02-13 09:04:31 PM  

OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.

Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.


That's what I tended to notice when I used to spend a good deal of time at the range on a regular basis.

You had cops that came in regularly who practiced and were good shots, but they usually tended to be the type who would be firearms enthusiasts even if they were not LEOs.

And then you had cops who would come in once in a while who would put a target 15 feet out and still be bouncing rounds off the overhead rail and target hanger.  The worst offender I ever saw answered his cellphone while in the stall and lost all muzzle awareness, finger on the trigger, barrel swinging around wildly.  He had the balls to look pissed when the rest of us started ducking and screaming at him.

That guy shouldn't have been a cop... he didn't have enough common sense to work the fryolator at a McJob.
 
2014-02-13 09:13:10 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just pointing out that the 9th Circuit isn't some liberal hippy paradise court as some people seem to be implying.


lol
 
2014-02-13 09:15:58 PM  

moike: OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.

Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.

That's what I tended to notice when I used to spend a good deal of time at the range on a regular basis.

You had cops that came in regularly who practiced and were good shots, but they usually tended to be the type who would be firearms enthusiasts even if they were not LEOs.

And then you had cops who would come in once in a while who would put a target 15 feet out and still be bouncing rounds off the overhead rail and target hanger.  The worst offender I ever saw answered his cellphone while in the stall and lost all muzzle awareness, finger on the trigger, barrel swinging around wildly.  He had the balls to look pissed when the rest of us started ducking and screaming at him.

That guy shouldn't have been a cop... he didn't have enough common sense to work the fryolator at a McJob.


Too bad he didn't "answer" his pistol when his phone rang.
 
2014-02-13 09:18:46 PM  
Oh yay.

FFS.
 
2014-02-13 09:20:22 PM  

SubBass49: Oh yay.

FFS.


I concur. I cannot understand why judges believe that concealed weapons permits should be issued to people who are not able to provide substantial campaign contributions to local sheriffs.
 
2014-02-13 09:23:43 PM  

Callous: sugar_fetus: 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 don't feel safer when carrying.. I have a spare tire and jack in my car, and a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Neither one of them protects me from flats or fires, so neither make me feel safer.

They all, however, make me more prepared in case something does go wrong.

I've been assured time and again on Fark that preparation for unlikely events indicates paranoia.  That's why I stopped wearing a seat belt and threw away my smoke detectors.


Smoke detectors and seat belts are for pussies!  Why are you so afraid?
 
2014-02-13 09:24:02 PM  

OgreMagi: Dimensio: AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.

Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.

It's important to point out that Senator Boxer once had a CCW, which are almost impossible to obtain here in California.  She gave it up when it became publicly known and a political liability.


Many published figures for San Francisco list TWO permits issued to private citizens in the entire City... while Boxer and Feinstein (although hers was a loooong time ago) both had them.

Double standard much?
 
2014-02-13 09:32:23 PM  
Something else to keep in mind, for the folks that say this only effects SD county, the same panel at the 9th also heard Richards v. Prieto the same day, which dealt with essentially the same issues, but in Yolo county.  I can't see them ruling differently.
 
2014-02-13 09:35:40 PM  

OgreMagi: Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.


No, I know that. I can't remember with whom I was arguing, but me saying said "Bill of Rights" only to get a response of, "ha! and that was 12 years after the Constitution!" or whatever, like it was some gotcha moment, is exactly the kind of goalpost movement the conservatives are so proud of. Trying to "win" via semantic horseshiat instead of having a viable argument. I was heading that off.
 
2014-02-13 09:40:56 PM  

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.


First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.
 
2014-02-13 09:43:54 PM  

skinink: I don't have enough popcorn in the world to keep reading what will follow in this thread.


Just don't throw any popcorn, you are liable to get shot.
 
2014-02-13 09:45:14 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,


Denial of reality does not alter reality.

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


-- We're legislating from the bench, and,

Overturning an Unconstitutional law is not "legislating from the bench".


-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

The main point of contention was that the law of the District of Columbia was Unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the court.
 
2014-02-13 09:47:18 PM  

fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?


The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.
 
2014-02-13 09:47:58 PM  

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.


Right, everybody knows that the Bill of Rights are all about collective rights and not individual rights.  Or are you arguing that the 2nd is the only amendment that recognizes a collective right rather than an individual right and did the founders just farked up the wording?
 
2014-02-13 09:50:26 PM  

Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.



The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.
 
2014-02-13 09:51:07 PM  

AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners


Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions
 
2014-02-13 09:51:24 PM  

badLogic: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.


For fair consideration, as a retired police officer he was allowed to carry a concealed firearm by federal law, even without a Florida issued permit.
 
2014-02-13 09:52:31 PM  

fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?


Here's a list just from Florida.
 
2014-02-13 09:53:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:15 PM  

badLogic: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.


He was a retired police chief so he would be able to carry a gun anyway.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:17 PM  

tylerdurden217: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions thinks insulting platitudes are a substitute for reasoned debate.


Fixed that for ya.
 
2014-02-13 09:58:15 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.


That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.
 
2014-02-13 09:58:37 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.


The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.
 
2014-02-13 10:01:03 PM  
Wouldn't people be more polite if they knew you were carrying a weapon?
 
2014-02-13 10:02:05 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.


Guess what? I didn't support Prop 8.So, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

But, you're one of those people who thinks anyone who supports individual gun rights is an evilbadwrongrepublicanconservative.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report