Right to BEAR arms upheld in Federal Appeals Court

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does anyone know whether or not this ruling has any bearing on California's discretionay "may issue" which is actually "no issue" policy regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits? Each county jurisdiction has the authority to issue and I've heard that it's possible to obtain one if you live in a lesser populated county away from the large metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Fisco, San Diego, Sacramento, etc.

No, it won't.

The Ninth recently upheld may issue laws as Constitutional.

 

[Anathema]

What's the accuracy rate of handguns in live shootings? I heard it's less than 50%. Where do the rest of those defensive bullets go? Probably defending someone else out there.

The guns are very accurate within 25 yards and slightly less so out to 50 yards. What’s inaccurate are the shooters. Insufficient training and practice by civilians and LEOs is what accounts for the stats.

 

[grainbely]

I have no idea what the **** you are trying to convey there. The second statement isn't even a sentence.

But yes, a thug is, by definition, a felon.

thug
THəɡ/
noun

1. 1.
   a violent person, especially a criminal.
   synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;
   informaltough, bruiser, hardman, goon, heavy, enforcer, hired gun, hood
   "one of Capone's thugs

I know leftists have turned it into a term of endearment. I don't give a shit. A thug is a criminal.

Yeah...…….I didn't know what that pair of ….statements meant either. "Do you really think all thugs are felons? Thugs as in you look at them and call them a thug." That one.

But it's possible that the poster meant to refer to the one definition your dictionary leaves out. "Thug" is now often used as a euphemism for black males who are probably criminals. Non-PC to call them blacks so people find a safer word. I don't do that. I just say things. It does make for clearer sentences, if I'm lucky.

That's exactly what I was doing. Felon is an overly specific term in this case. The poster I was responding to seems to be conveniently expanding terminology to match what appears to be a prejudiced ideation of thugs. I was initially referencing the same thing because I know they fall for that trap like flies on shit. Bravo!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So as a result of this ruling in theory, if not in practice, a California resident may open carry a firearm but be denied a license to carry a concealed firearm because the issuing authority determines that the applicant doesn't have justification to do so.

Either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court needs to clean up this mess.

 

[grainbely]

Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.

Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.

A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are ******* important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free ******* health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Moose, black bears and grizzlies, wolves, lynx, stray dogs, and human predators.

It sounds like you live out in the wilderness. No one cares if you have guns out there or hunt. We care that the NRA destroys laws and enforcement that attempt to protect the majority population from abuses of these offensive weapons. And they do just that. The BATF is impotent. You might as well hand out biological weapons and tactical nukes to whomever wants them.

 

[EverCurious]

A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are ******* important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free ******* health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Moose, black bears and grizzlies, wolves, lynx, stray dogs, and human predators.

It sounds like you live out in the wilderness. No one cares if you have guns out there or hunt. We care that the NRA destroys laws and enforcement that attempt to protect the majority population from abuses of these offensive weapons. And they do just that. The BATF is impotent. You might as well hand out biological weapons and tactical nukes to whomever wants them.

I live in the largest city in Alaska. Just that, unlike you destructive lower 48 urbanites we didn't willy-nilly pave the entire bough (county) Not that we could frankly, Federal bureaucrats also turned over half my state into a park in an effort to "make up" for their destruction of the lower 48's wild spaces so we don't get a choice about keeping the dangerous wild animals out of our city even if we wanted to; because of Federal interference in our ability to develop and grow.

You would use that same "one size fits all" federal law system to take away our ability to protect ourselves, our pets, and our children. You are selfish and inconsiderate of the survival and protection necessary by other Americans, rural American's all over this country. Maybe you should clean up the crime in your cities instead, this nations citizens have had guns from the very beginning and somehow it wasn't a ******* "safety problem" until the 1980s when Democrats started letting criminals in the city off easy, started letting the drug cartels into the nation wholesale - for votes and power.

All the NRA does is defend the 2nd from you anti-gun nuts. I actually wasn't a member until this year, but after seeing the lefts socialist, communist agenda come brazenly out into full daylight, I realized that we best contribute to their last ditch efforts to save our 2nd; at a minimum so that my family will be able to defend itself from the wave of domestic terrorists that have been frothed into a violet pack of wild animals by the DNC (and their media puppets) and unleashed upon Republicans (and Independents caught in the cross fire) all across the country. We fully intend to take out as many of the lefts brown shirts as possible before we're thrown in the gulags for being rich, or for being constitutionalist's; doesn't much matter, either one is a death sentence with the new DNC.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting the right to self defense, not even logic.

Heller vs DC

What about Heller vs DC?

I mean, it doesn't take much to articulate oneself, does it?

How can you say not one scrap of evidence and not know heller?

What?

I know Heller. You just didn't make an argument. You merely said "What about Heller vs DC?"

Well WHAT THE **** ABOUT HELLER VS DC ARE YOU ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT?

******* hell, how can things be so damn ******* difficult for people to make a ******* argument once in a while? I'm assuming you went to some sort of school.

You claimed not one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting self-defense,

Heller vs DC affirms that right independent of connection with a militia.

Yes, I claim no one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting self-defense, and you've done NOTHING to change that.

Just going "Heller vs DC" doesn't change that. You actually have to make a damn argument.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[Rustic]

Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.

Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.

A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are ******* important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free ******* health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Lol
None of your business, you ******* Coward

 

[Rustic]

A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.

You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.

The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.

This is why state's rights are ******* important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free ******* health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)

Why do you need a gun?

Moose, black bears and grizzlies, wolves, lynx, stray dogs, and human predators.

It sounds like you live out in the wilderness. No one cares if you have guns out there or hunt. We care that the NRA destroys laws and enforcement that attempt to protect the majority population from abuses of these offensive weapons. And they do just that. The BATF is impotent. You might as well hand out biological weapons and tactical nukes to whomever wants them.

You fucked up progressives want to register all firearms so you have a list to confiscate all firearms

 

[frigidweirdo]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

******* hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really ******* depressing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

******* hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really ******* depressing.

So if I pull Heller, cite the line and verbiage and prove that both I and the wiki page are right, then what ? You assert Heller is wrong or you are wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

******* hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really ******* depressing.

So if I pull Heller, cite the line and verbiage and prove that both I and the wiki page are right, then what ? You assert Heller is wrong or you are wrong?

Oh, ******* hell.

You quoted WIKIPEDIA and expect this to be what? Like I said, you didn't show me one thing from the actual case.

You've done one thing, and that's quote wikipedia.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

 

[OODA_Loop]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Heller upholds the right to bear arms for personal defense outside of connection with a militia.



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Does it?

You haven't shown this.

No?

******* hell, this is slow work. No, you've shown nothing, in fact. Not one single word from the case you're trying to use for your argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

I mean, you went to school, I assume, and they didn't tell you how to make a simple argument? That's really ******* depressing.

So if I pull Heller, cite the line and verbiage and prove that both I and the wiki page are right, then what ? You assert Heller is wrong or you are wrong?

Yes, Heller/McDonald is the law of the land – there is an individual right to possess a firearm, there is a right to self-defense.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

The problem is that you and others on the right seem to forget that fact when that same Supreme Court rules that there is a right to privacy, and that gay Americans have a right to equal protection of the law.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[frigidweirdo]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,


As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

-Heller vs Dc

Oh, ******* hell......

So now you're just posting bits from DC vs Heller without any opinion.

I am not wasting my time on this bullshit. Either make you ******* argument, or don't, but this is painful.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Argument = Your assertion there is nothing supporting the 2A is for self-defense is unmitigated, ingnorant bullshit which is easily disproved by following the link I provided from Wiki and read that Heller supports this. Then I went so far as to pull text from the Heller desicion in support.


So now you know The 2A does provide for personal self-defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Argument = Your assertion there is nothing supporting the 2A is for self-defense is unmitigated, ingnorant bullshit which is easily disproved by following the link I provided from Wiki and read that Heller supports this. Then I went so far as to pull text from the Heller desicion in support.


So now you know The 2A does provide for personal self-defense.

No, an argument is where you make your case for what you've actually said.

I don't need to agree with your argument. But until you make an argument, I can't rip your argument to shreds, because I have no ******* clue what your argument actually is.

It took you like 10 posts to simple come out and post one thing that backed up your supposed argument, and then you didn't say WHY it backed up your argument.

I can't debate with nothing.

In fact I'm being NICE by trying to get the argument out of you. Most people would have insulted you a long time ago.