Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California

[martybegan]

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

I would agree that they can pass a law meaning you have to prove you actually have a right to own/carry a firearm because after all they also have a right to pass a law requiring you to prove you have a right to vote, but any restrictions beyond that start to become onerous they are in fact bans.

And that is what they do. They either add conditions, i.e. "need", or make the process so laborious and expensive that you get a de facto ban, if not a de jure one.

 

[martybegan]

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

yep, plus it leads to cronyism.

 

[Contumacious]

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

The criteria was "need". Something as ambiguous as that creates the ability for the official to deny a permit on their whim.

And what is the problem for wanting a CCW just because you want one? Why does government get a choice in it beyond making sure you are legally able to posses a firearm?

The requirement is simple.

Is the individual breathing? Does he want to continue to breath ? YES?

Then he has a right to CCW. Plain and simple .


.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The entire left agenda on this is just amazing.

"let's keep law abiding citizens from arming themselves" while totally ignoring the absolute tragedy going on in cities like Chicago right now.

61 people shot in Chicago last weekend, anyone want to bet on how many of those shootings were done with guns legally owned by law abiding citizens? My guess is <5.

How about solving THAT problem and leave my guns alone

 

[bendog]

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

 

[Contumacious]

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?


.

 

[bendog]

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

If a person would qualify in one county but not in another with near same "need" plus the same urbanization, crime, etc, then I'd see a problem. But all I see in Peruta is this:

An affidavit of Blanca Pelowitz, Manager of the San Diego Sheriff's Department License Division, describes the definition of good cause in San Diego County:
Good Cause ... is defined by this County to be a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm's way. Simply fearing for one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause. This criterion can be applied to situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.
Good cause is also evaluated on an individual basis. Reasons applicants request a license will fall into one of ... four general categories[.]
The only two general categories potentially relevant to this appeal are:
Category 2 = Personal Protection Only includes: documented threats, restraining orders and other related situations where an applicant can demonstrate they are a specific target at risk.
Category 4 = Business owners/employees includes a diversity of businesses & occupations, such as doctors, attorneys, CEO's, managers, employees and volunteers whose occupation or business places them at high risk of harm.
The published policy of Yolo County does not define “good cause” but gives examples of where good cause does, or does not, exist. The policy provides as follows:
Examples of valid reasons to request a permit include, but are not limited to:
Victims of violent crime and/or documented threats of violence.
Business owners who carry large sums of cash or valuable items.
Business owners who work all hours in remote areas and are likely to encounter dangerous people and situations.
Examples o[f] invalid reasons to request a permit include, but are not limited to:
Recreation in remote areas.
Hunting or fishing.
Self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence).
Employment in the security field, i.e., security guard, body guard, VIP protection.
Personal safety due to job conditions or duties placed on the applicant by their employer.

 

[bendog]

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

 

[Contumacious]

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

 

[B. Kidd]

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

 

[Contumacious]

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

 

[bendog]

It might be arbitrary if different counties have wide enough differences in what standards apply to good cause to need a CC license.

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

There is NO DOUBT that the original intent was NOT for the 2nd, nor any other of the BoR to be incorporated. But incorporated they are, so you don't now get to say "oh wait a minute, states should be free to do as they wish"

 

[B. Kidd]

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

Only for now.........ask those who wanted a CC in N.J. and N.Y., and now add Ca. and Hi..

 

[bendog]

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

There is NO DOUBT that the original intent was NOT for the 2nd, nor any other of the BoR to be incorporated. But incorporated they are, so you don't now get to say "oh wait a minute, states should be free to do as they wish"

Leaving aside whether OI was for or against incorporation, your post makes no sense to me. Let's assume for discussion the 2nd doesn't apply to CA ... then CA could ban private ownership entirely.

More to the point, we conservatives have been decrying fed govt power overreach. Like the 9th cir decision in Peruta or not, all the fed courts can, or can't say, is whether CA has the power to restrict freedom. Fed govt power is nowhere involved.

 

[bendog]

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

Only for now.........ask those who wanted a CC in N.J. and N.Y., and now add Ca. and Hi..

The Miss legislature is not cutting any right to CC in Miss.

 

[B. Kidd]

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

Only for now.........ask those who wanted a CC in N.J. and N.Y., and now add Ca. and Hi..

The Miss legislature is not cutting any right to CC in Miss.

Like I said, not for now.

 

[Contumacious]

And you know the very nature of people is going to mean that that is exactly what will happen.

No I don't think anyone can know that. For example, to qualify for disability there are certain standards, or needs, one has to meet, but there are literally hundreds of judges. If there's a unified, consistent means for evaluating applications, it's not arbitrary.

Is there a better "good cause" standard that wanting to stay ALIVE?

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO DEFEND THE SAME EMANATES FROM NATURE'S GOD NOT STATE LEGISLATURES.


.

 

[bendog]

Progressives think so. If they get their way, only politicians, actors, economic leaders, and those considered 'rich' will qualify for concealed carry......along with their bodyguards. The rest of us can eat cake and absorb bullets.
Fortunately, 9th circuit decision only applies to Ca. and Hawaii, for now. Later, when the Hill-Beast gets elected and names SCOTUS judges, it will apply to the rest of us.

Indeed, this election is for 'all the marbles'!

I wish that was true.

Hillary will appoint a fascist to SCOTUS who will conclude that Americans do not have a right to carry slingshots let alone firearms.

.

The fallacy, cont, is that ALL restrictions on CC will arise at the STATE level. All federal courts can do is uphold or overturn them. We've consistently bitched that "let states decide." Careful what you wish for.

Here in Miss, a CC license can be had for the asking, and open carry is just fine.

Only for now.........ask those who wanted a CC in N.J. and N.Y., and now add Ca. and Hi..

The Miss legislature is not cutting any right to CC in Miss.

Like I said, not for now.

As the former chief judge for the 5th cir said, between us three judges we have enough guns to start a war in the third world country