California in violation of the second amendment

[Dr Grump]

You live in New Zealand don't you?

How about keeping it there

Oh, so now you want to limit MY freedom of speech...

You aren't an American citizen you only have the right your government grants you. You want unarmed people live in NewZealand I want armed people I'll live here

you just said these rights are inalienable and given by God. So god is only in the US?

<edit> and where in Cali law does it say you're not allowed your peashooter?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Can the police still carry?

Are they able to carry them loaded?

If so, Why?

The law only prohibits carrying and unloaded and exposed handgun.

 

[Dr Grump]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All rights are limited rights.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms. Yo only have 'some' right to bear arms. A reasonable right to bear arms...nothing more.

So, you get to openly carry a toothpick.

Rights are only limited by God not by the state

And what rights does God limit or not limit? Are you privy to what he decides?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the states have given the feds the authority to keep in check any violation of the second amendment and the second Amendment says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of keep and bear arms do these pricks not understand?


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.
New law bans open carry of handguns in Calif. - Forbes.com

If you're going to babble about constitutionality, at least have the decency to understand constitutional law. The second amendment does not prohibit government from enacting certain regulatory measures regarding weapons. Thus, many states have laws about concealed handguns. The federal government has passed laws about assault weapons. Certain regulations are permissible under the constitution where a legitimate government interest is being met, and where those regulations are sufficiently narrow.

All the CA law seems to do is prohibit a handgun from being displayed when not loaded. My recommendation would be that if you want to open carry, have your handgun loaded. That would be advisable anyway, as an unloaded gun is more dangerous than a loaded gun. Also, you could get a CCW permit. There's nothing here that I can see as unconstitutional.

If you're going to babble about constitutionality, at least have the decency to understand constitutional law.

I amwell versed in the second amendment you really don't want to go down that road with me.

The federal government has passed laws about assault weapons.

According to recent Superme court rulings as recent as 1980 the only firearms protected by the second amendment are those on the gun bans of the past. Those evil assualt weapons.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hence you have the right to keep and bear arms any way a person see's fit to.

Aparantly not, and rightly so....

I've heard NZ has some great trout rivers.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

WHAT DOES SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEAN?

Probably something similar to "Shall not be denied" which is what the first amendment says about free speech. If you really want to play this semantics game, you'd have to insist that absolutely nothing could stop anyone from carrying any weapon anywhere, ever. I.E. a person could strap on a dozen hand grenades and walk into the White House with an AK-47 and nobody could stop him. Obviously that's a no go. So it's pointless to play this word game here, because it will devolve into extremism.

Not to mention, the 14th amendment only requires "due process of the law" to restrict a person's constitutional freedoms. This means the State of California is free to restrict 2nd amendment rights within the scope of their actions serving a legitimate government interest.

 

[Inthemiddle]

According to recent Superme court rulings as recent as 1980 the only firearms protected by the second amendment are those on the gun bans of the past. Those evil assualt weapons.

1) Then according to you handguns are not covered by the second amendment. So why are you babbling?

2) The fact still remains that assault weapon restrictions are constitutional. So why are you babbling?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stop living in the past.
The constitution was written 250 years ago by a bunch of hicks that were barely out of the Dark Ages and still believed the earth was flat (it isn't you know)!

They knew the Earth wasn't flat, the ancient Greeks proved it centuries ago.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Stop living in the past.
The constitution was written 250 years ago by a bunch of hicks that were barely out of the Dark Ages and still believed the earth was flat (it isn't you know)!

They knew the Earth wasn't flat, the ancient Greeks proved it centuries ago.

Millennia, in fact.

 

[idb]

Stop living in the past.
The constitution was written 250 years ago by a bunch of hicks that were barely out of the Dark Ages and still believed the earth was flat (it isn't you know)!

They knew the Earth wasn't flat, the ancient Greeks proved it centuries ago.

According to some, if it isn't specifically written into the constitution then it can't be so.

 

[idb]

Hence you have the right to keep and bear arms any way a person see's fit to.

Aparantly not, and rightly so....

I've heard NZ has some great trout rivers.

Bring your rod over sometime.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hence you have the right to keep and bear arms any way a person see's fit to.

Aparantly not, and rightly so....

I've heard NZ has some great trout rivers.

It does, especially in the south island. I went trout fishing on Lake Taupo, long time ago. Caught them from the boat, then BBQed em in a little bay about 30 minutes after catching them....mmmmmm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All rights are limited rights.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms. Yo only have 'some' right to bear arms. A reasonable right to bear arms...nothing more.

So, you get to openly carry a toothpick.

Rights are only limited by God not by the state

And what rights does God limit or not limit? Are you privy to what he decides?

I have the riht to be free from an opressive government they can't take that away.
God gives rights the government doesn't give them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the states have given the feds the authority to keep in check any violation of the second amendment and the second Amendment says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of keep and bear arms do these pricks not understand?


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.
New law bans open carry of handguns in Calif. - Forbes.com

If you're going to babble about constitutionality, at least have the decency to understand constitutional law. The second amendment does not prohibit government from enacting certain regulatory measures regarding weapons. Thus, many states have laws about concealed handguns. The federal government has passed laws about assault weapons. Certain regulations are permissible under the constitution where a legitimate government interest is being met, and where those regulations are sufficiently narrow.

All the CA law seems to do is prohibit a handgun from being displayed when not loaded. My recommendation would be that if you want to open carry, have your handgun loaded. That would be advisable anyway, as an unloaded gun is more dangerous than a loaded gun. Also, you could get a CCW permit. There's nothing here that I can see as unconstitutional.

If you are going to opine on the Constitution you should have the honesty to admit that constitutional law has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. It does not say squat about imposing regulations on that right, in fact, it specifically forbids it. The court, representing the interests of the government, has steadily ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to take away your rights.

Your interpretation of what the CA law seems to do is as well founded as your defense of the jurisprudence used to restrict our rights. Can you explain to me how an unloaded weapon can possibly be more dangerous than a loaded one?

In the entire history of the universe no one has ever been shot by an unloaded weapon. Since open carry was instituted in California there have been exactly zero (that is zip, nada, naught, nil, nix, zilch) people shat by anyone openly carrying and unloaded weapon. Only a complete idiot would even try to argue against open carry with a specious claim saying that unloaded weapons are more dangerous than loaded one.

As for getting a CCW, they are shall issue in CA, which leaves it entirely up to the discretion of the local sheriff. Unless you make large donations to his reelection it is all but impossible to actually get a CCW in most counties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am 100% sure that you are incorrect
The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed

to bear means to carry

The constitution uses similar wording about free speech. Yet libel and slander laws, incitement laws, harassment laws, etc, are constitutional.

None of those have anything to do with free speech, but thanks for playing.

 

[WatertheTree]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing about open carry laws.

What else would you call the right to bear arms??

write stupid backwards on your forhead then go look in the mirror.

I wouldn't call it an open carry law. But please, show me where it says so in the Constitution. Learn how to spell 'forehead', then write that word on your forehead so you can remember that you have one. Moron.

Right to bear arms dipshit. Go smoke a blunt and then 'hit mcdonalds'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All rights are limited rights.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms. Yo only have 'some' right to bear arms. A reasonable right to bear arms...nothing more.

So, you get to openly carry a toothpick.

I can yell fire in a theater. You should go see Rocky Horror sometime before you start talking about what can, and cannot, happen in a theater.

 

[Dr Grump]

Rights are only limited by God not by the state

And what rights does God limit or not limit? Are you privy to what he decides?

I have the riht to be free from an opressive government they can't take that away.
God gives rights the government doesn't give them.

When did she/he give these rights? How do you know these rights are given? What other rights are given?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to recent Superme court rulings as recent as 1980 the only firearms protected by the second amendment are those on the gun bans of the past. Those evil assualt weapons.

1) Then according to you handguns are not covered by the second amendment. So why are you babbling?

2) The fact still remains that assault weapon restrictions are constitutional. So why are you babbling?

1) Then according to you handguns are not covered by the second amendment. So why are you babbling?

Have you ever heard of a colt 1911? It's the standard sidearm isse of the military.

2) The fact still remains that assault weapon restrictions are constitutional. So why are you babbling

No they are not.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Now why are you still babbling?

 

[Dr Grump]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All rights are limited rights.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms. Yo only have 'some' right to bear arms. A reasonable right to bear arms...nothing more.

So, you get to openly carry a toothpick.

I can yell fire in a theater. You should go see Rocky Horror sometime before you start talking about what can, and cannot, happen in a theater.

Go and do it then. In a crowded theatre...dare you, too.

There is nothing about fire in Rocky Horror - toast and rice maybe, but not fire...