• 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!

California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

Is this a good ruling?

  • Total voters
    25
Goshin said:
It's a bit of an odd decision for the 9th 'Circus' IMO... they've usually been classified as rather far left-leaning, as well as the most-reversed court in America.

One wonders if their purpose is to force the Supremes to take it up, hoping that SCOTUS will rule against out-of-home-carry as fundamental to the 2A.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. It'd be akin to a red state allowing a man to marry his horse in an effort to strengthen "one man, one woman".
 
Activist judges overturning the will of the people and states' rights!!!!
 
apdst said:
The Constitution is a gift horse? Interesting POV.
Click to expand...

You think the constitution is a horse and therefore it's ok to kill it since it's just an animal? Interesting POV.

You know, since we're attacking statements people never made.
 
apdst said:
Sure. Why not? I'm opposed to any law that violates our civil rights.
Click to expand...

And yet I have heard nothing but crickets when the TPs attempt to pass such laws. No wait, I heard shrill cries of "Un-elected activist judges dictating from the bench!" or the ever popular whine of " Hijacking the Will of the People!"

Not once have I heard you say 'hang 'em high' or 'jail is too good for the TP bastards'!

I do believe you are trying to CON us.... :doh
 
Deuce said:
You think the constitution is a horse and therefore it's ok to kill it since it's just an animal? Interesting POV.

You know, since we're attacking statements people never made.
Click to expand...

Made? Yes. I never said anything close to that.
 
APACHERAT said:
Well the Second Amendment is the national law when it comes to citizens bearing arms.

I don't see where the Tenth Amendment comes into play. When states start regulating guns, they are violating the Second Amendment.

Every state, county and municipal law or regulation that violates the Second Amendment should be overturned and declared unconstitutional.

It's time to start holding elected officials, legislatures, etc. to the oath they have taken to upholding and defending the Constitution. Any elected official who has voted for any law that violates the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution should be tried and convicted and sentenced to six years of hard labor. Bring back the chain gangs for convicted politicians who violate Americans Constitutional Rights.

That would put over 2/3 of California's state legislatures on the chain gang. I like that.
Click to expand...

BWUAHAHAHAHAHa...

That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of...... And a violation of the 8th Amendment.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not nearly enough. Twenty years, minimum, for each violation. Consecutive, not concurrent. And a lifetime ban on holding any government job or position. For a public servant to willfully violate the Constitution needs to be treated as a very, very serious crime.
Click to expand...

Another violation of the 8th Amendment.....
 
APACHERAT said:
Hey Bob :2wave:

I concur.

I wasn't joking or trying to be funny, I'm serious.

Every elected politician from a city council member or water board member, County commissioner, Sheriff, to the state legislature and the Governor, etc. all take an oath of office and that oath states they will uphold and defend just not the state constitution but the Constitution of the United States of America.

And there are just too many elected politicians in America who have failed to uphold the oath of office they have taken and don't have to answer to anyone. They can't even be sued as individuals.

You start sending these politicians or anyone who has taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution who violated the oath of office to prison, we might start getting back all of the personal rights and freedoms we use to have at one time.

Six years is pretty lenient, but I was including hard labor. Bring back the chain gangs. 12 hours a day turning boulders into gravel. Those who physically can't swing a sledgehammer, then 20 years in with the general prison population.

I'm serious. I've had enough of having my rights taken away. I'm old enough to remember the individual freedoms I once had and no longer have today.

Every activist judge in America who legislates from the bench should be purged from the bench. Including those on the SCOTUS. Send them to prison to.
Click to expand...

I'm serious, too. Hard labor or not, I do not think that willful violations the Constitution by a public servant who has taken an oath specifically to uphold and defend the Constitution is something that should draw less than a twenty-year prison sentence per violation. I do not want those kind of criminals back out in only six years.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm serious, too. Hard labor or not, I do not think that willful violations the Constitution by a public servant who has taken an oath specifically to uphold and defend the Constitution is something that should draw less than a twenty-year prison sentence per violation. I do not want those kind of criminals back out in only six years.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd be very supportive of such an idea right up until a theocratic politician you supported was thrown in prison for violating the 1st.
 
Caine said:
BWUAHAHAHAHAHa...

That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of...... And a violation of the 8th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Caine said:
Another violation of the 8th Amendment.....
Click to expand...

I do not see where the Eighth Amendment comes into play, here.

What we are talking about is serious prison time for what ought to be treated as a very serious crime. Certainly, the crime committed by a public servant, who, having taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, willfully violates that oath, violates the Constitution, and violates the rights of the very people that he is supposed to be serving, is a serious enough crime to call for at least as serious a penalty as what I or APACHERAT have been advocating for such criminals.
 
rathi said:
I'm sure you'd be very supportive of such an idea right up until a theocratic politician you supported was thrown in prison for violating the 1st.
Click to expand...

What “theocratic politicians” who violate the First Amendment do you think I support?
 
NIMBY said:
Which is why there should be a National law, another failing of the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

Expanding a stupid idea to national scope is really not a good idea.

Which rights and who is to determine them ?
Click to expand...

This particular right is spelled out in the constitution.

With the anything goes gun-posters on dp, I'll take my chances with any form of gov't .
Click to expand...

Would you like that position applied to rights that you actually care about? Whatever argument you use to justify violating the compelling state interest standard can easily be turned back on you.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
What “theocratic politicians” who violate the First Amendment do you think I support?
Click to expand...

While I don't have a list of exhaustive politicians whom you support, you have clearly articulated views that are contrary to the first. I remember the thread in which you make a laughable argument about how the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states, only to congress.
 
rathi said:
While I don't have a list of exhaustive politicians whom you support, you have clearly articulated views that are contrary to the first. I remember the thread in which you make a laughable argument about how the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states, only to congress.
Click to expand...

You mean because it begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law…”? It's “laughable” to claim that the Constitution means exactly what it says?

In any event, I have never claimed that this remains true. I fully-acknowledge the modifying effect of the Fourteenth Amendment, which now requires states to uphold the same rights which, as originally-written, the First Amendment only restrained the federal government from violating.
 
rathi said:
Expanding a stupid idea to national scope is really not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Unless the stupid idea is one you agree with.
This particular right is spelled out in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Which particular right would you be talking about, since there are many rigthts?
Would you like that position applied to rights that you actually care about?
Click to expand...
YES
Whatever argument you use to justify violating the compelling state interest standard can easily be turned back on you.
Click to expand...
Whay was the compelling state interest standard again ?
And turning things back on me meaqns we're back to square one, a familiar position with anytthing goes gun-posters .
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You mean because it begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law.
Click to expand...

What laws were Congress making these days?
I haven't seen anything worthwhile from the House for three years now !
 
notquiteright said:
I was taught to never look a gift horse in the mouth, just be thankful you get to ride instead of walk.

Seems to me the 9th court is just doing it's job, for all the left lean some see in it... but funny how now the rants about 'non-elected activist judges' and a 'tyrannical bench' will not be coming from the usual posters in the forum...
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way at all. The way I see it is that the anti-gun agenda constantly goes too and now this is blowing back in their faces. "May issue" is like saying: Yes, you are a minority and and yes you have a right to equal housing under the law, but depending on who is given the power to decide whether or not you get to rent that apartment, you may not get it. The decision may be completely arbitrary and unequal, so tough luck and you have no recourse.

When the leftist California legislature made it illegal to "open carry" a unloaded firearm (which could be legally loaded under conditions where a citizen was under a threat), the legislature effectively eliminated any way for a citizen to effectively protect themselves outside of their homes other than by calling the police. The legislature basically said your life is only protected inside your home, and that is going too far.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
I don't see it that way at all. The way I see it is that the anti-gun agenda constantly goes too and now this is blowing back in their faces. "May issue" is like saying: Yes, you are a minority and and yes you have a right to equal housing under the law, but depending on who is given the power to decide whether or not you get to rent that apartment, you may not get it. The decision may be completely arbitrary and unequal, so tough luck and you have no recourse.

When the leftist California legislature made it illegal to "open carry" a unloaded firearm (which could be legally loaded under conditions where a citizen was under a threat), the legislature effectively eliminated any way for a citizen to effectively protect themselves outside of their homes other than by calling the police. The legislature basically said your life is only protected inside your home, and that is going too far.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Democrats in Sacramento did.
 
NIMBY said:
What laws were Congress making these days?
I haven't seen anything worthwhile from the House for three years now !
Click to expand...

There's a silver lining in the clouds when nothing comes out of Congress, less rights have been taken away from the people through legislation.

In California just about every bill that passes in the state legislature is either a regulation telling people how to live their lives or a new tax or fee.
 
NIMBY said:
Unless the stupid idea is one you agree with.
Click to expand...

True, but not only do I not agree with the idea, I would consider it illegal.

Which particular right would you be talking about, since there are many rigthts?
Click to expand...

The second amendment.

YES
Click to expand...

Really. So if you were detained by the police, rather than the right to unreasonable searchs being granted by default, you would prefer having to show cause for why you shouldn't be searched. Same thing for innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, legal presentation, avoiding self incrimination and so on.

Whay was the compelling state interest standard again ?
Click to expand...

The concept that if the state wishes to infringe upon a right, the burden lies upon the state to show the compelling interest that justifies said infringement.

And turning things back on me meaqns we're back to square one, a familiar position with anytthing goes gun-posters .
Click to expand...

I'm not an anything goes gun-poster. There are plenty of circumstances where it is quite reasonable to deny a CCP, but I do require that the state prove its case before doing so.
 
APACHERAT said:
I don't see where the Tenth Amendment comes into play. When states start regulating guns, they are violating the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Only since 2010. Before the SCOTUS decision in 2010 the second amendment applied only to the federal government, not to the states, just as the founders intended.

APACHERAT said:
Any elected official who has voted for any law that violates the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution should be tried and convicted and sentenced to six years of hard labor. Bring back the chain gangs for convicted politicians who violate Americans Constitutional Rights.

That would put over 2/3 of California's state legislatures on the chain gang. I like that.
Click to expand...

That would be unconstitutional, ironically.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
I don't see it that way at all. The way I see it is that the anti-gun agenda constantly goes too and now this is blowing back in their faces. "May issue" is like saying: Yes, you are a minority and and yes you have a right to equal housing under the law, but depending on who is given the power to decide whether or not you get to rent that apartment, you may not get it. The decision may be completely arbitrary and unequal, so tough luck and you have no recourse.

When the leftist California legislature made it illegal to "open carry" a unloaded firearm (which could be legally loaded under conditions where a citizen was under a threat), the legislature effectively eliminated any way for a citizen to effectively protect themselves outside of their homes other than by calling the police. The legislature basically said your life is only protected inside your home, and that is going too far.
Click to expand...

Last thing first- are you referring to the Mulford Act of 1967? So called because of RepubliCON assemblyman Don Mulford? Now until the governor signs a bill it ain't law, so it wasn't the legislature all by it's oneses that made this law, guess who signed that bill into law.... Patron Saint of the CONs Ronald Reagan... so can the leftist crap :doh

It wasn't a sinister plot to disarm decent GAWD fearin' 'Mericans... it was in reaction to the Black panthers arming themselves after several were killed by police. The armed black guys were patrolling their neighborhoods and OMG some lighter shade of pale folks were scared!!! :shock:

FYI, I NEVER defended may issue, so you are talking to the wrong dude there....

Howsomever the analogy is flawed as housing doesn't involve deadly force. :peace
 
Paleocon said:
Only since 2010. Before the SCOTUS decision in 2010 the second amendment applied only to the federal government, not to the states, just as the founders intended.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has not been changed since it was ratified more than two centuries ago. It has always stated a specific right, stated that this right belongs to the people, and forbidden this right from being infringed. It has never given license to any level of government to infringe this right.
 
Paleocon said:
APACHERAT said:
It's time to start holding elected officials, legislatures, etc. to the oath they have taken to upholding and defending the Constitution. Any elected official who has voted for any law that violates the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution should be tried and convicted and sentenced to six years of hard labor. Bring back the chain gangs for convicted politicians who violate Americans Constitutional Rights.

That would put over 2/3 of California's state legislatures on the chain gang. I like that.
Click to expand...

That would be unconstitutional, ironically.
Click to expand...

Where, in the Constitution, is there anything against imposing an appropriate penalty on a criminal, proportional to the crime of which that criminal has been properly convicted?

The Constitution itself is the very highest law of the land. Surely, any time a public servant who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and who has been given extraordinary authority for that purpose, abuses that authority in order to violate the Constitution, this is among the highest of possible crimes.

I disagree with APACHERAT in that I think six years of hard labor is far too lenient a punishment for such a crime. I think that nothing less than twenty years will do, and even that may be too lenient.
 
Paleocon said:
Only since 2010. Before the SCOTUS decision in 2010 the second amendment applied only to the federal government, not to the states, just as the founders intended.
.
Click to expand...

You're accusing the conservatives on the SCOTUS of legislating from the bench.

I would say most constitutionalist, republicans and even many democrats believed that the Second Amendment trumped state gun laws.
That the original intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights Second Amendment prevented the states from disarming it's citizens. States regulating guns or disarming it's citizens would be in violation of the federal Militia Law where all males are members of the unorganized militia.

It was always Communist Party USA and it's splinter groups like the "New Left" who are todays liberals and progressives who used the states to infringe on Americans Second Amendment rights.

If we used your argument, states could establish a state religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom