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 106
    More: Interesting, California law, San Francisco County Superior Court, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

10353 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-13 04:54:15 PM  
7 votes:
When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.
2014-02-13 07:46:14 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-13 06:56:35 PM  
4 votes:
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 06:54:47 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:38:20 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:22:37 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:49:07 PM  
3 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public


No, it's not.
2014-02-13 09:54:17 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:20:22 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:21:22 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:19:34 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:18:12 PM  
3 votes:
"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 07:01:47 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-02-14 12:37:20 AM  
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: 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.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.
2014-02-14 12:16:47 AM  
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: I agree. I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it. You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.


Job, not duty. Duty has a very specific meaning. You can be found in dereliction of your duty and punished for it in a court of law (civil if not criminal). Fail to do your job and you just get fired. This is where your comment went off of the rails.

TuteTibiImperes: I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement. If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.


Chicago has had almost no person walking around legally carrying around a firearm, and it had one of the highest murder rates at the time, the same with many other large cities (DC, Detroit, Oakland and so on). The facts are that criminals will always be able to get guns. I'm willing to bet you, without even looking it up, that the vast majority of gun deaths outside of the home of the person owning the gun are not being caused by CCW permit holders but by illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:46:30 PM  
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns


That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.
2014-02-13 10:53:29 PM  
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


Your willingness to continue issuing a statement even after it has been proven to be false is admirable, in the same way that a creationist's insistence upon denying decades of established scientific research is admirable.
2014-02-13 10:51:02 PM  
2 votes:

tylerdurden217: sugar_fetus: 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.

No, I was intentionally trite and insulting.

I have no desire to debate tonight.

PS... Guns are marketed towards pussies.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.


Your open admission that you are entirely incapable of rational thought is appreciated.
2014-02-13 10:49:50 PM  
2 votes:
TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "
2014-02-13 10:03:23 PM  
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: 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.


"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.
2014-02-13 10:02:55 PM  
2 votes:

Pray 4 Mojo: 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.


It's been made very difficult to even get a registered handgun into your home for self defense for a looong time as well unless you know someone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) that also sells guns. Most people just go to a gun shop.

Step 1: Go buy a pistol. But not in San Francisco proper, there is exactly one gun shop that sells pistols in the city and it sells strictly to LEOs only. So you need to go a couple of miles south to someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.

Step 2: Go through (and pay for) the California and San Mateo County background checks and registration fees..

Step 3: Once the checks are completed then you can go get your new pistol... no wait, you can't do that yet if you live in San Francisco. Instead to have to get it "exported" by someone with a FFL in San Mateo County to someone in San Francisco with a FFL who can legally "Import" it. Of course there are fees and such to pay at both ends for that to happen.

Step 4: Ok, the pistol is now officially "Imported" so now you can go get it right? No so fast there buddy. The city requires that they do their own background checks and registration. So even more fees to be paid (and it ain't cheap either).

Step 5: Ok now you can go get the pistol and take it home provided that you have an approved storage container and trigger locks. Time spent, about 1 month. Money spent on fees, licenses and registrations (not including the cost of the pistol itself, which by the way can't be an inexpensive "Saturday Night Special" as they define it but a much more expensive pistol that's on their "approved list") over $500 in paperwork alone when everything is said and done. At least seven transactions not including the gun proper.

All told the final cost for the least expensive pistol that they will let you have as a registered handgun is north of $1,000. And that's not even for a carry weapon. I can't imagine what they would ding a citizen to get a carry permit, open or concealed (if they ever issued them).

It could be at least a little bit cheaper if they would issue business licenses to gun shops within the city limits but good luck getting that through the zoning process. It's much quicker and cheaper for the gun shop to move south a couple of miles instead.
2014-02-13 09:53:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:45:14 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:35:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:20:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:16:44 PM  
2 votes:

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"?
2014-02-13 08:00:53 PM  
2 votes:
Since CA is usually a festival of anti-gun legislation, this is a really amazing development and I really hope this stands.  We really needed a win in contrast to all the usual setbacks crafted by our legislators who are busy quaking in fear of "ghost guns", Bullet Buttons, and repair kits for our magazines.  Since the last attempt to make this a Shall Issue state died quickly in committee last year, I fully expect them to fight this.

I just wish they understood that carrying does not turn us into the roving thugs they think it does.
2014-02-13 07:47:59 PM  
2 votes:
lostcat:
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.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.
2014-02-13 07:40:33 PM  
2 votes:
About time, but I'll believe it when I see it.

/Californian.
2014-02-13 07:20:13 PM  
2 votes:

lostcat: 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.


The way California does it (or did it I guess) makes it essentially impossible to ever get a carry permit unless you have a job that requires it or you knew someone in the sheriffs dept.. The laws say that it's allowed but the number of approved applications was close to zero. As I understand it the sheriffs departments from all of the counties had an informal agreement to not issue the permits using the explanation that the person applying hadn't shown a need for it, wanting it wasn't good enough even if you met all of the "Official" state law requirements. This ruling means that it's up to the sheriffs departments to show cause for not issuing and not just saying no with no reason given other than "Not needing" it.

I think that if someone can pass the background checks, has been trained in gun safety (including passing a written test on the related laws including what states they would get in trouble in if they carried in them) and has shown at least a good familiarity with the weapon that they will be carrying on a range (using the USNs scoring system should work) then there should be no reason to deny them the right to carry. After that if they are caught by the police brandishing or otherwise being provably unsafe then their permit gets pulled until they can show that it won't happen again (so probably for life for most people).
2014-02-13 06:52:00 PM  
2 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2014-02-13 06:47:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:25:50 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:24:35 PM  
2 votes:

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


As a Californian, I agree.
2014-02-13 06:19:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:44:02 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:38:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:29:47 PM  
2 votes:
Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread
2014-02-13 05:03:56 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:02:06 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-14 04:56:39 PM  
1 votes:

Scrotastic Method: It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth. Is your disagreement, then, with my use of the phrase, "than it should"? Do you think we have an appropriate amount of gun death? Is your argument that we have the right amount of gun death and everyone else has not enough?


COnsidering that their stats include suicides, I disagree with their stats.

That being said, I think the problem is less in having guns, and more in society itself. If you ever go over and visit Switzerland (I have), the people there aren't complete asshats and self-interested, narcissistic douchebags unwilling to exercise any forethought or self restraint.

Sadly, the US seems to excel in the "hey, it's not my problem" department.

Plus, we have that whole war on drugs going on which incites a lot of gang violence leading to a major percentage of our gun-related deaths. So we have that going for us, which is nice.
2014-02-14 01:05:58 PM  
1 votes:

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller

Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.

Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?


Yet it's down 50% in the US over the last 20 years.  And still falling.

50%
2014-02-14 12:50:16 PM  
1 votes:

Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller


Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.
2014-02-14 12:39:23 PM  
1 votes:
Kahabut

Look, it's simple. I don't care if you carry a gun. I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly. The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party. That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time? And you gave him a permit to carry? fark that.

In the theory, of course, we're all of the same mind. But as it happens, in the real world, we not only let people walk around with such skills or their lack, we give them special dispensation of authority. That in mind, I don't find it unimaginable that such a person should have the right to defend himself, what with those we expect to do more showing the same lack of acuity.

/see: Empire State Building shootings, 2012
2014-02-14 03:26:15 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

Shot him.

Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and ...


Hold on, I'm trying to get a grip on all the rules for your game here.  So I get run over by a car...am I still able to reach weapon?  If so, I want my weapon to be a gun, and not a rubber chicken, which the govt may require I defend myself with. Guns work much better.  I just want the right to use the best tool to defend my life.

OK. so I've been run over.  If I'm already out of it...oh well, bad guy wins, but he won because he got the drop on me, not because the govt prevented me from defending myself. Do you understand that concept.  The govt preventing you from defending your own life?  The govt taking away that basic human right of survival.  The govt took it, not the bad guy.  If the bad guy took it by running me down with a car, so be it...he's a bad guy. He doesn't give a fark about my right to survival.  The govt shouldn't be the bad guy.  The govt shouldn't take away my right to survival.
2014-02-14 03:13:12 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and run you over from behind.
/Damn, Marshal Rambo Dillon, that's really farking impressive.
//Totally only-in-the-movies fictional, but really farking impressive.


You do understand the concept of "show of force", yes?
My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car.
So if he was able to draw on the two gentleman, maybe they would have reconsidered their little plan and fled.
If not, he could have opened fire, and hopefully ended the altercation there, whether he hit one of them or not.
If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him.
Arguing the hypothetical what-ifs of a specific situation are stupid.
But for me, I'd still prefer to have that option available to me if worse comes to worse.

I will be interested to see where this goes for CA, and if it has any noticeable effect on the current trending in violent crime, firearms related homicide, etc.
2014-02-14 02:33:09 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?


Shot him.
2014-02-14 01:18:35 AM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.


This guy would like a word with you.

thenypost.files.wordpress.com
2014-02-14 01:03:32 AM  
1 votes:

Pray 4 Mojo: OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.

I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.


That is correct.  Those Rights are considered natural, we are born with them (or god given for you religious types).  However, without the 2nd Amendment's protection, I would guarantee a lot of states would outright ban all types of firearms in private possession.
2014-02-14 12:59:04 AM  
1 votes:

OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.


I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.
2014-02-14 12:53:41 AM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: 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.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

Why?  Legislation and Supreme Court cases address individual amendments all the time.  When prohibition was repealed they didn't throw out the whole constitution, they addressed the problem amendment only.


So pass a farking amendment.  Until then, STFU about my rights.
2014-02-14 12:48:43 AM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.


Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.
2014-02-14 12:30:30 AM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Move to Japan then.
2014-02-14 12:16:45 AM  
1 votes:
I'm a pro.

I'm pro gun, pro choice, pro equality for all men, women, GLBT and other. Pro diversity, pro race, pro race mixing, go pro, pro tect,  pro wrestling, pro hunter, pro 1st Amendment through the last Amendment, pro geek, pro nerd, pro hipster (because I don't give a fark if they want to look silly or not) pro athelete, pro pr0n, proton, pro gram, pro MJ, pro sex worker, pro mo,  proto, zoic, ...homo, because I'm human 1st and generally in favor of people being allowed to do whatever the fark they want as long as they aren't farking other people over.

I am the living man.

/go like a pro, bro.
2014-02-13 11:50:44 PM  
1 votes:
It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.
2014-02-13 11:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


You have a very distinct lack of knowledge about the history of the 2nd Amendment our courts.  The Supreme Court did not go off into some radical new territory with their decision.  They stuck with how they had ruled before, and only CLARIFIED things to make it impossible for state governments to weasel around what they had stated in the past.
2014-02-13 11:04:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Why are gun haters so obsessed with penises?
2014-02-13 11:03:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.


The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie).  Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?
2014-02-13 10:55:58 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: EdNortonsTwin: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.

Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.


This!  The people I know that hunt and shoot value their right to do so to such a degree, they would be the last person I could think of to commit a crime with a gun. This for fear they could lose the right forever.

I hope this ruling  materializes in to expanded rights for us in CA
2014-02-13 10:53:34 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


True, but many feel that when you are seconds away from harm, the police are often minutes away and want the means to protect themselves.
2014-02-13 10:50:07 PM  
1 votes:

EdNortonsTwin: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.


Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.
2014-02-13 10:47:29 PM  
1 votes:

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


I'm in telecom and we are required by the FCC to have 99.95% uptime on circuits that carry 911 traffic. We have techs that have to go out at all hours of the day and night into good and bad neighborhoods.  We can't wait for conditions to improve, they have to go immediately.  These guys have tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment(test sets, OTDRs, etc) in their trucks.  While our employee handbook doesn't endorse them carrying firearms it also doesn't prohibit it.  It's kind of a don't ask, don't tell kinda thing.
2014-02-13 10:46:31 PM  
1 votes:

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.
2014-02-13 10:44:51 PM  
1 votes:

sugar_fetus: 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.


No, I was intentionally trite and insulting.

I have no desire to debate tonight.

PS... Guns are marketed towards pussies.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.
2014-02-13 10:44:19 PM  
1 votes:

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


1. What if she is forced to live in a dangerous neighborhood due to housing costs and availability and therefore must travel a dangerous area everyday.
2. Many companies/businesses don't care assuming the gun isn't brought on premises so long as the hypothetical individual left it in the vehicle (which is a safety issue given storage options but a separate issue).
2014-02-13 10:38:29 PM  
1 votes:
This is a temporary decision.  The San Diego DA and County Counsel has already asked for a stay of the decision and the full 9th Circuit to examine the case again and issue a new ruling.  Chances are the 9th Circuit will agree and the decision will go the other way.  If this does happen, there is some comfort for those requesting CCW permits in the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overruled jurisdictions in the country when the Supreme Court takes a case and this issue will be going before the court at some point given the split in the various jurisdictions.

If you read over the decision, it does seem to be pretty well crafted in terms of historical analysis and why this California restriction by certain counties really is more burdensome than in other states given California's near total prohibition on open carry. If the right to self-defense is meaningful, it has to be able to be exercised and California has made that nearly impossible outside of ones home given the existing state gun control laws.

It will be interesting to see how they get around this issue in an opinion overturning this decision.  My prediction is the disparity in urban and rural crime and difficulties law enforcement faces allows such reasonable restriction as to requiring additional means to justify a permit. Furthermore rural counties basically operate under a "shall" type issuing of CCW gives individuals the opportunity to move to those areas or to use the political process and elect a sheriff that will operate "shall" issuing method in urban counties.
2014-02-13 10:37:20 PM  
1 votes:

EdNortonsTwin: WTF do they mean good moral character? If you stole someones watch or cheated on your wife 20 years ago you can't expect to get a permit?

Weird.


This is the kind of thing that allowing the police departments to have their own "discretion" about who can and can't have a permit leads to.

Boston.com article
Edward Arsenault, 70, of Fairhaven, was turned down for his license renewal earlier this year because he had been convicted in juvenile court of stealing a chicken from a chicken coop when he was 9 years old, in 1946.
2014-02-13 10:21:45 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


Your statement implies that I believe that the amendment was "reinterpreted" in those cases, but I do not.
2014-02-13 10:17:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


First of all there is no enumeration of the right to get married (gay or straight) in the constitution that I'm aware of while there is a very definitely an enumeration regarding the right to bear arms.

But let's just say that there is for the sake of argument. If you were "For" the overturning of Prop 8 then you must also be "For" this decision as well. You also don't get to have it both ways.
2014-02-13 10:08:02 PM  
1 votes:

sugar_fetus: 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.


I have been assured that, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, a fair and progressive tax rate, health care reform and easy access to birth control and abortion, I am a "bagger" because I believed that a proposed law to ban .50 caliber rifles -- and to mandate surrender of any currently owned rifles to the government -- was not reasonable.
2014-02-13 10:06:10 PM  
1 votes:

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.


"The Republicans" were mistaken then, and TuteTibiImperes is mistaken now.
2014-02-13 10:02:05 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-13 10:01:03 PM  
1 votes:
Wouldn't people be more polite if they knew you were carrying a weapon?
2014-02-13 09:54:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:24:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:01:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:49:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:33:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:27:42 PM  
1 votes:
"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 08:27:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:22:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:20:50 PM  
1 votes:
'Bout farking time.
2014-02-13 08:19:28 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-13 08:17:44 PM  
1 votes:

fnordfocus: Radioactive Ass: And I'm willing to bet that they will get sued over it (and lose based upon this decision).

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.

By the way, does anyone have an idea if this ruling affects whether cities must issue permits?  In at least some counties, the Sheriff has a stated policy of only considering permits for residents of unincorporated areas.


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.

Same old story everywhere.  Wonder how many law abiding citizens will have to suffer before the municipalities get their heads out of their asses.

Oh and I'm sure there's a presidential "I'm very disappointed in this decision" coming too
2014-02-13 08:00:12 PM  
1 votes:
This is a serious problem. I do not understand why the judges did not take into account the substantially high rate of violent crime committed by concealed weapons permit holders when issuing their ruling.
2014-02-13 07:59:22 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: 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.


What it does do is remove the idea  that in order to get a CCW, you have to show "need" - a nebulous concept that can be interpreted in many arbitrary ways.
2014-02-13 07:57:15 PM  
1 votes:
KInda makes you wonder how people in countries like Canada survive. Why are we not all dead from raging armed maniacs on the street?

Or maybe we just are not collective cowards.
2014-02-13 07:54:23 PM  
1 votes:

shda5582: Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense

.

I believe that's what the ruling says.

I'd be willing to place a significant wager that Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties still refuse to issue permits to anyone who isn't "connected."
2014-02-13 07:43:09 PM  
1 votes:

moike: I looked at the photo in the article of the judge pointing to the target from his CCW test and my first thought was, "Holy crap dude, they gave you a CCW with grouping like that?"


Hey, if 20 out of 30 anywhere on a human sized silhouette at 15 yards is good enough for the military then it should be good enough for everyone else. It's not like the police have a great record of hitting a target based upon past news reports of shootouts where ~60 bullets are fired and the bad guys getting hit once or twice if at all. 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.

The average person who doesn't shoot a lot is usually a lousy shot. I was an RSO in the navy and if I had to keep training people on the range until everyone was a good shot I'd have blown through my yearly ammo budget really quickly and not had enough qualified watch standers to perform our mission.
2014-02-13 07:32:48 PM  
1 votes:

tylerdurden217: Guns are for pussies.


Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies


This is for fighting, this is for fun!
2014-02-13 07:30:12 PM  
1 votes:
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,
I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.

separation of powers
You mean like zero re-writing obama care? I would have sworn the USC said Congress not the exec. branch writes law.,
or when the president is near.
WTF are you talking about?
2014-02-13 07:26:09 PM  
1 votes:

Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies


Sorry, you don't medal in the Troll Olympics.
The Russian judge gave you a two, but all the others gave you the finger. Better luck in four years.
2014-02-13 07:23:29 PM  
1 votes:
guns are for pussies
2014-02-13 07:22:43 PM  
1 votes:
Bout time fer chrisakes.
2014-02-13 07:21:16 PM  
1 votes:
Guns are for pussies.
2014-02-13 07:17:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:17:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:17:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:36:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:30:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:18:41 PM  
1 votes:
Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!
2014-02-13 05:51:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:47:08 PM  
1 votes:
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."
 
Displayed 106 of 106 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report