Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Federal Court reaffirms right to Open Carry of firearms in California.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    100

    Federal Court reaffirms right to Open Carry of firearms in California.

    I hope I'm not out of line posting this here.


    http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...rms-california


    snip--->"Now that we have a Federal Judge in the 9th Circuit recognizing the right to openly carry a firearm in public, loaded if need be, "
    Last edited by oldgoat; 12-11-2010 at 01:37 AM. Reason: to add a snippit

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964
    You are kidding, right? This was not a win!

  3. #3
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    That's very dangerous spin.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
    I hope I'm not out of line posting this here.
    CN is way off base. All she said is basically that the second amendment does not protect carry outside of the home. But if it does UOC is more then adequate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    104
    i can haz gun in public?

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by xnetc9 View Post
    i can haz gun in public?
    Uhm.. no. Not in the sense that anyone can carry a loaded firearm in defiance of 12031 and 626.9 and expect no repercussions. If Mr Nichols is so certain of his assertion that the court has ruled in any binding manner, he should volunteer to be the test case.

    Wildhawker has it right-this interpretation is dangerous- not only in advocating the practice of LOC with laws on the books prohibiting it, but from the perspective of legal precedent. Even if it were binding, who wants the right to keep and bear a non-functional (unloaded) firearm?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    100
    removed
    Last edited by oldgoat; 12-11-2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason: mistake

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it.
    Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
    Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086...h_and_gadgets/

  9. #9
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Which is all well and good, except that the implication of the article is an [intentional] fabrication based upon non-informed reasoning.

    It's a spin piece, pure and simple.

    If it didn't have the potential to land people in jail, it would simply be another op ed among thousands.

    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it.
    Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
    Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086...h_and_gadgets/
    Last edited by wildhawker; 12-11-2010 at 03:36 PM.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  11. #11
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Finding something good in something bad is upsetting and strange. The fellow writing the article was able to find a nugget of good in the ruling whether or not the overall ruling was anything good at all. It made me think of this article I read earlier today that fits right in with this forum although most will disagree with it.
    Want to be popular on the Internet? Be a jerk!
    Study finds Internet users are overwhelmingly attracted to the negative




    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40610086...h_and_gadgets/
    This must also be true of news agencies. They breathe in positive and exhale negative. What news agency, including Fox, primarily reports on positive news? They all live in the negative world.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Uhm.. no. Not in the sense that anyone can carry a loaded firearm in defiance of 12031 and 626.9 and expect no repercussions. If Mr Nichols is so certain of his assertion that the court has ruled in any binding manner, he should volunteer to be the test case.

    Wildhawker has it right-this interpretation is dangerous- not only in advocating the practice of LOC with laws on the books prohibiting it, but from the perspective of legal precedent. Even if it were binding, who wants the right to keep and bear a non-functional (unloaded) firearm?
    Your right C-3, the only way to attack 12031 is on the 4th-A, just like Mc Donald case.
    When a "law"12031(e) is being done on you, you can get the "Officer & Officers name and badge's" and file in
    Federal Court under Title 18 USC section 241 & 242.
    The misunderstanding here I been trying to explain, is you are not filing against the PD, at that time
    but rather the Individual Person who violated your rights.

    Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
    However my point is, by filing a "Personal lawsuit", the poor leo will say screaming "I'm just doing my job" !
    What happens then is that PC 12031(e) comes under the flag in the Federal court, as being Unconstitutional.
    As it violates your 4th-A. At that point it becomes unenforceable. Mc Donald wins again !

    All you need is the money to file in Federal Court, on 4th-A violations against that man personally.
    Its a Win-Win situation think about it !
    If the "Officer claims, I'm just doing my job", even though he "Does" have an option to not e-check, but did violate your 4th, then that's clearly a Title USC sec 241 & 242 violation.
    If a "Law" is unconstitutional then that's exactly what it is ! An unloaded gun is not self-defense !

    Also its fraud to take the public's money under false pretenses, and that is a felony & crime, regardless
    of a law that said they can.
    Norton vs.Shelby County
    118 US 425 p. 442

    Also Miranda vs.Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491

    Also Marbury vs.Madison vs.5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803).

    These are long established decisions.

    So lets hear from you guys? what do you think of that ? Robin47 Yeah we Win ! Wheres that banana?

  13. #13
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Would you tune into watch a Breaking News segment that says "plane lands without incident at LAX" or "tune in at 7pm for video of Lindsey Lohan driving sober and safely down Wilshire Blvd " ?
    I remember when I was a kid in Ft. Worth, the last six or seven minutes of the news was always on something that was about something good going on around town or about a person doing something good. That was always the part of the news that grabbed my attention.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  14. #14
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Your right C-3, the only way to attack 12031 is on the 4th-A, just like Mc Donald case.
    When a "law"12031(e) is being done on you, you can get the "Officer & Officers name and badge's" and file in Federal Court under Title 18 USC section 241 & 242.
    The misunderstanding here I been trying to explain, is you are not filing against the PD, at that time but rather the Individual Person who violated your rights.

    Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
    However my point is, by filing a "Personal lawsuit", the poor leo will say screaming "I'm just doing my job" ! What happens then is that PC 12031(e) comes under the flag in the Federal court, as being Unconstitutional.
    As it violates your 4th-A. At that point it becomes unenforceable. Mc Donald wins again !

    All you need is the money to file in Federal Court, on 4th-A violations against that man personally.
    Its a Win-Win situation think about it !
    If the "Officer claims, I'm just doing my job", even though he "Does" have an option to not e-check, but did violate your 4th, then that's clearly a Title USC sec 241 & 242 violation.
    If a "Law" is unconstitutional then that's exactly what it is ! An unloaded gun is not self-defense !

    Also its fraud to take the public's money under false pretenses, and that is a felony & crime, regardless of a law that said they can.
    Norton vs.Shelby County
    118 US 425 p. 442

    Also Miranda vs.Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491

    Also Marbury vs.Madison vs.5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, (1803).

    These are long established decisions.

    So lets hear from you guys? what do you think of that ? Robin47 Yeah we Win ! Wheres that banana?
    Now this is true I'm not blaming the leo's, their "just doing their job" and rightly so !
    Isn't our complaint that their job is also to uphold the Constitution...not break it? They may be doing what they are told, but they are destroying our rights, so they are not doing the job "the people" are paying them to do.
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-13-2010 at 02:06 PM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  15. #15
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Would you tune into watch a Breaking News segment that says "plane lands without incident at LAX" or "tune in at 7pm for video of Lindsey Lohan driving sober and safely down Wilshire Blvd " ?
    Yes, I would. I used to go to the S.F. airport when I was I was in college to watch the planes come and go. I was raised around planes and I have always loved them.

    Lohan driving sober? That would be a headliner!
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

Posting Permissions

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