Good news from the Ninth Circuit Regarding Concealed Carry in California
 

En banc opinion here. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20webcites.pdf

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

You betcha! :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that a Washington quote?

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

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

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

Tired old insult duly noted, old man. :)

Self defense is indeed the second bear arms right.

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

Slaves were property, not servants.

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

Okay, it's a tired ancient insult.

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

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

Don't forget slave patrols.

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

2/5 property, 3/5 servant.

He never addressed which of us was getting it wrong.

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

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Well said Steve. Thank you.

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

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

We have higher standards in California. ;)

You have unconstitutional standards.

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

So, stay out of California. :rolleyes:

Please!

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

It was a joke.:rolleyes:

Unless the Supreme Court opines otherwise.

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