• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of [W:93]

Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

cpgrad08 said:
Sounds like Maggie is for open carry. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually, since Illinois now has concealed carry and I see how restrictive it is, I'm for it. For open carry, that is. The idea that I could be arrested because my over-blouse blows open and somebody sees that I'm carrying a gun in a setting where it's lawful to do so . . . could spend thousands of dollars defending one's self . . . be inconvenienced by an unpleasant trip to the police station . . . possibly be convicted of a felony . . . well, it's ridiculous. Brandishing is something else again. But somebody catches a glimpse? Ridiculous.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

Bob Blaylock said:
What could possibly be a more fair and just punishment to a criminal than to impose on that criminal the exact same harm that that criminal attempted to illegally impose on his victims?
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye? Didn't Jesus have something to say about that? I thought you were a Christian conservative.

Anyway, eye for an eye justice doesn't make sense at all. For one, justice is supposed to be better than not equal to criminals, secondly how would you punish someone like a drunk driver? They didn't attempt to hurt anyone
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

MaggieD said:
Actually, since Illinois now has concealed carry and I see how restrictive it is, I'm for it. For open carry, that is. The idea that I could be arrested because my over-blouse blows open and somebody sees that I'm carrying a gun in a setting where it's lawful to do so . . . could spend thousands of dollars defending one's self . . . be inconvenienced by an unpleasant trip to the police station . . . possibly be convicted of a felony . . . well, it's ridiculous. Brandishing is something else again. But somebody catches a glimpse? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Another reason why I do like my state when in comes to guns. Just wish it was a full constitutional carry state.
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

How long till we know if this is going to the Supreme Court?
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

Sietske22 said:
How long till we know if this is going to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

I doubt it will go since this decision is based on the SCOTUS Heller decision.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

CRUE CAB said:
Shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

sure it can, Disneyland is private property, you have no exercisable rights on others private property, ...it would be the same for your house, others cannot carry in your house without your permission, ..and that permission makes it a privilege, extended by the property owner.
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

Del Zeppnile said:
Well, it would be certain that in places like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York the cities will fight this tooth and nail. I think I read somewhere that in Los Angeles County (the largest populated county in the country with the fewest law enforcement per capita) only a few hundred CCW permits are granted each year, and it appears that most of those my have some political connection to the county sheriff.

It is ironic how in California an illegal alien has a process to obtain a drivers license, but a citizen with no criminal history doesn't have an effective way to obtain a CCW permit in most California cities/counties. This whole "may issue" approach is like Santa saying you may get a gift---- although it doesn't matter even if you have always been nice and never naughty.
Click to expand...

Dont even get me started on how local law enforcement treats illegals out here.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

Wiseone said:
An eye for an eye? Didn't Jesus have something to say about that? I thought you were a Christian conservative.

Anyway, eye for an eye justice doesn't make sense at all. For one, justice is supposed to be better than not equal to criminals, secondly how would you punish someone like a drunk driver? They didn't attempt to hurt anyone
Click to expand...


:roll:
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

ernst barkmann said:
sure it can, Disneyland is private property, you have no exercisable rights on others private property, ...it would be the same for your house, others cannot carry in your house without your permission, ..and that permission makes it a privilege, extended by the property owner.
Click to expand...

Restaurants, Pharmacies, Factories, are also private properties. But they have been determined to be within the public domain.

One could argue that if racial, religious, sexual discrimination in all public domain establishments is illegal than so is violations of local & Constitutional gun laws.
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

Anything new with this case?
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

Lachean said:
If only Maryland were as sensible. We're still a "May issue" state that requires a "Good and substantial reason" that one judge rightly deemed unconstitutional, but it was overturned by an Obama appointee and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

Congrats on possibly having your 2A rights extend past your front door. Damn I wish I could carry...
Click to expand...

It is not Maryland that needs to be sensible it is firearm organisations and owners that need to be sensible and start PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS instead of throwing them away.

The simplest way is to motivate firearm owners to protect their rights and to OBJECT and PROTEST any infringements, existing or proposed until those rights are restored. We own those rights WTF is the matter with us?
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

Crimefree said:
It is not Maryland that needs to be sensible it is firearm organisations and owners that need to be sensible and start PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS instead of throwing them away.

The simplest way is to motivate firearm owners to protect their rights and to OBJECT and PROTEST any infringements, existing or proposed until those rights are restored. We own those rights WTF is the matter with us?
Click to expand...

I suspect the difference is that the vast majority of gun owners are decent people who simply want a gun for normal defense, sport or just plain insurance purposes. They are not obsessed. They are not one issue zealots. They are not consumed by the idea of guns and what they claim are their rights with them. They have and use common sense and realize they live in a society with 315 million other people and it is not their perceived "right" which must triumph over all other concerns.

The one issue zealot who is consumed and obsessed by guns and the issues around them will never be able to understand what "is the matter with us" - meaning the American people that do not share their fixation.

One of the truly sad things about the devolution of nation discourse is that when the right wing set out to hijack the NRA and this politicize this entire issue, it allowed the single issue obsessed zealots to come to the front and dominate the discussion. the result is more polarization, a greater divide and push for even more extremist positions from the gun lobby crowd. They live, eat and breathe the gun issues and their divide from normal Americans becomes even worse. And the cycle only worsens.
 
Last edited:
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

haymarket said:
I suspect the difference is that the vast majority of gun owners are decent people who simply want a gun for normal defense, sport or just plain insurance purposes. They are not obsessed. They are not one issue zealots. They are not consumed by the idea of guns and what they claim are their rights with them. They have and use common sense and realize they live in a society with 315 million other people and it is not their perceived "right" which must triumph over all other concerns.

The one issue zealot who is consumed and obsessed by guns and the issues around them will never be able to understand what "is the matter with us" - meaning the American people that do not share their fixation.

One of the truly sad things about the devolution of nation discourse is that when the right wing set out to hijack the NRA and this politicize this entire issue, it allowed the single issue obsessed zealots to come to the front and dominate the discussion. the result is more polarization, a greater divide and push for even more extremist positions from the gun lobby crowd. They live, eat and breathe the gun issues and their divide from normal Americans becomes even worse. And the cycle only worsens.
Click to expand...

You know when some dickhead is making noises that applies to himself. He accuses others of what he does hoping nobody will notice.

See I don't care if you own a car, pencil, axe or knife. I don't care how many times you go to the bar and get drunk. I don't care if you use a cane to walk with. What I do care about is the zealots who think they are better than others and want to tell others what they can own, when they can use it, how that can use it and when they cannot use it. Some call them interfering busybodies but its far worse than that. This bunch is willing to see people die to get what they want. I mean creating safe shooting ranges for nuts and criminals and putting up innocent children as targets as an advertising campaign for more has to be the work of zealots. When the lives lost are of no concern and the campaign is continued despite its known result that has to be the work of zealots.

Now that is an obsession when what others do it is such a problem to you that you want government to act as your bully boy and unjustifiably take others toys away from them without care what happens after.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

Crimefree said:
You know when some dickhead is making noises that applies to himself. He accuses others of what he does hoping nobody will notice.

See I don't care if you own a car, pencil, axe or knife. I don't care how many times you go to the bar and get drunk. I don't care if you use a cane to walk with. What I do care about is the zealots who think they are better than others and want to tell others what they can own, when they can use it, how that can use it and when they cannot use it. Some call them interfering busybodies but its far worse than that. This bunch is willing to see people die to get what they want. I mean creating safe shooting ranges for nuts and criminals and putting up innocent children as targets as an advertising campaign for more has to be the work of zealots. When the lives lost are of no concern and the campaign is continued despite its known result that has to be the work of zealots.

Now that is an obsession when what others do it is such a problem to you that you want government to act as your bully boy and unjustifiably take others toys away from them without care what happens after.
Click to expand...

That vitriolic rant certainly proves everything I said in my post about obsessed zealots certainly is true and valid. thank you for that.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

haymarket said:
That vitriolic rant certainly proves everything I said in my post about obsessed zealots certainly is true and valid. thank you for that.
Click to expand...

I think the real zealots are those who want to pretend the constitution says something that it obviously does not because they want to restrict the very rights our founding fathers saw as preeminent

what is really sad is when said zealots constantly lie about their motivation: such as pretending that public safety is their goal when in reality its all about punishing those that oppose the agenda of the zealots' party
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

TurtleDude said:
I think the real zealots are those who want to pretend the constitution says something that it obviously does not because they want to restrict the very rights our founding fathers saw as preeminent

what is really sad is when said zealots constantly lie about their motivation: such as pretending that public safety is their goal when in reality its all about punishing those that oppose the agenda of the zealots' party
Click to expand...

It appears you are engaged in the timeless "I know you are but what am I" retort so famous on elementary school playgrounds all over the land.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

haymarket said:
It appears you are engaged in the timeless "I know you are but what am I" retort so famous on elementary school playgrounds all over the land.
Click to expand...

no, actually i am engaged in an accurate description of what the anti gun left does. they pretend to care about crime control and while some of them pander to that concern when raised by sheeple, the vast majority of anti gun lefties are trying to harass conservative gun owners.

there is too much evidence that most of the schemes the Democrat party engages in concerning our gun rights have no hope in deterring criminals

like the Hughes Amendment that banned legal machine guns made after May 19, 1986 even though in fifty years prior to the Hughes Amendment there had only been ONE Crime with legally owned machine guns.

or the Anti Gun Scum in office claiming that the sunsetting of the Clinton gun ban would lead to massive amounts of deaths perpetrated by "assault weapons"

guess what, that was a lie yet the anti gun scum like Brady and Sugarmann still repeat that

so crime control has little if anything to do with what motivates the gun banning activists
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

TurtleDude said:
no, actually i am engaged in an accurate description of what the anti gun left does.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly and often said you reply to what you think the opposition believes because they LIE. You are NOT replying to anything anyone actually advocates but what exists only in your own fears and imagination.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

haymarket said:
You have repeatedly and often said you reply to what you think the opposition believes because they LIE. You are NOT replying to anything anyone actually advocates but what exists only in your own fears and imagination.
Click to expand...

If you gun banning democrats really were interested in fighting crime, you wouldn't be pushing laws that only harass law abiding citizens
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

TurtleDude said:
If you gun banning democrats really were interested in fighting crime, you wouldn't be pushing laws that only harass law abiding citizens
Click to expand...

And that is your justification for continually stating that you are arguing about what you BELIEVE your opposition wants rather than the honest approach in meeting head on what they ACTUALLY say and advocate? Amazing!
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

haymarket said:
And that is your justification for continually stating that you are arguing about what you BELIEVE your opposition wants rather than the honest approach in meeting head on what they ACTUALLY say and advocate? Amazing!
Click to expand...

there is too much evidence for you to deny it

Criminals cannot own any firearms. So laws involving "assault weapons" magazine capacity, how many guns one can buy in a month etc are directed at lawful gun owners.
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

What's the status with this case?

Will it go to the Supreme Court?

Will the full 9th Circuit Court review it?
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

MaggieD said:
If you're the type of gun owner who doesn't obey the carry laws, you're part of "the problem." Carrying at Disneyland? I'm betting dollars to donuts that'll always be illegal.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

MaggieD said:
The way to resist stupid laws is to work to change them . . . not break 'em.

But that's me.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be a United States of America if the folks in the colonies operated that way. Just sayin'.
 
Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

MaggieD said:
If you're the type of gun owner who doesn't obey the carry laws, you're part of "the problem." Carrying at Disneyland? I'm betting dollars to donuts that'll always be illegal.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

The only legitimate “carry law” in this nation is the Second Amendment.

When government imposes restrictions on the right of free citizens to keep and bear arms, it is the government that is failing to obey the law.
 
Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of han

It was announced today that the full 9th Circuit court will not be reviewing this case, and it will stand as decided.

California is now officially Shall-Issue CCW.

That's unless the AG calls for a stay, so that he can appeal to the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom