View Poll Results: Is this a good ruling?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good decision

    29 90.63%
  • Bad Decision

    1 3.13%
  • Netural

    1 3.13%
  • Don't know/Care

    0 0%
  • Rotabega

    1 3.13%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63

Thread: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

  1. #41
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,805

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    You mean because it begins with the words, [i]“Congress shall make no law.
    What laws were Congress making these days?
    I haven't seen anything worthwhile from the House for three years now !
    Physics is Phun

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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...
    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.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    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.
    That's exactly what the Democrats in Sacramento did.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    What laws were Congress making these days?
    I haven't seen anything worthwhile from the House for three years now !
    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.

  5. #45
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Unless the stupid idea is one you agree with.
    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?
    The second amendment.

    YES
    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 ?
    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 .
    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.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I don't see where the Tenth Amendment comes into play. When states start regulating guns, they are violating the Second Amendment.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    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.
    That would be unconstitutional, ironically.

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    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.
    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

    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!!!

    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.

  8. #48
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    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.
    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.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  9. #49
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    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.
    That would be unconstitutional, ironically.
    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.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: California's "may issue" rule ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    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.
    .
    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.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •