Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: SAF to appeal Fed Judge's ruling against CCW

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    SAF to appeal Fed Judge's ruling against CCW

    Fed. judge’s ruling on concealed carry faces appeal

    This morning’s Seattle Times – the newspaper that significantly overlooked one of the biggest local stories of 2010, that being the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago – reports that a federal judge in California has ruled there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...y-faces-appeal

  2. #2
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Fed. judge’s ruling on concealed carry faces appeal

    This morning’s Seattle Times – the newspaper that significantly overlooked one of the biggest local stories of 2010, that being the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago – reports that a federal judge in California has ruled there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...y-faces-appeal
    Sounds like a worthy case to me.

    They do good work.
    Squeak!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Fed. judge’s ruling on concealed carry faces appeal

    This morning’s Seattle Times – the newspaper that significantly overlooked one of the biggest local stories of 2010, that being the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago – reports that a federal judge in California has ruled there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...y-faces-appeal
    It is a sad day when we have officers sworn to uphold the Constitution, who so openly violate that oath and ignore the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

    By the way, I just recently acquired a copy of a 1797 English dictionary with definitions that the founders would have used when writing the Constitution. The term 'to infringe' means 'To violate, to break laws or contracts;
    to destroy, to hinder.'

    So lets reword the second amendment with the definitions of infringe and see if it makes things more clear;

    1- 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 violated.

    2 - 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 broken.

    3 - 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 destroyed.

    4 - 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 hindered.

    The second amendment means all those things because those are the meaning of infringe at the time of the writing of the second amendment.

    But maybe our education system has so impeded our citizenry's vocabulary and intelligence that we even need to define hinder.

    From the same 1797 dictionary, the definition of 'to hinder' is; To obstruct, to stop, to impede.

    So what this means is that government at any level has no right (as unlike individuals, governments are actually GIVEN rights) to obstruct, stop or impede citizens from owning and carrying weapons.

    It is fairly clear that any ruling, ordinance or law that violates the Constitution is in fact, unconstitutional and there is no reading between the lines on this, or any other part of the Constitution... that is, if you honestly wish to be governed by a Constitutional Republic, which I posit that these people do not.

    The truth is that there is no such thing as reasonable regulation. The term 'reasonable' is highly subjective and cannot be objectively implemented where as the black and white definition of 'infringed' is quite easily determined. Its like a stoplight, there is no doubt when it is red, you cannot go, when it is green, you can. Reasonable interpretations of stoplights don't pass muster as we cannot say that it is reasonable to run a red light because there was no cross traffic.... that argument never flies... and so shouldn't the argument for reasonable regulation.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    It would appear that the Court did not feel that restricting a manner of carry was "infringing" the basic "right" to keep and bear arms. Can still carry one openly so they probably felt that fulfilled ones right.

    Somehow I don't feel that any court in this country is going to buy the argument that ANY regulation or restriction is an "Infringement" on the right as stated in the 2A. If they do, all the better, I just don't think they will.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    It would appear that the Court did not feel that restricting a manner of carry was "infringing" the basic "right" to keep and bear arms. Can still carry one openly so they probably felt that fulfilled ones right.

    Somehow I don't feel that any court in this country is going to buy the argument that ANY regulation or restriction is an "Infringement" on the right as stated in the 2A. If they do, all the better, I just don't think they will.
    Your reasoning is why the courts have basically become extra-Constitutional... meaning, above or outside of the Constitution. Until we the people put them in their place and jail them for breaking out laws... we will continue to become more and more enslaved. Their rulings will become defacto 'law of the land' and the Constitution will be but a footnote in history.

    Article Six, section two of the US Constitution clearly binds judges to abide by the Constitution where it states; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof (subservient to); and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing. "

    To explain this better, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 44, that the balance of powers allowed to States and judges does not allow them to ignore or supersede the US Constitution or treaties agreed upon by the Federal Government. James Madison also explained how it was dangerous to give such complete power to a central government which, in other parts of the Federalist papers, he explains just why the Federal Government has a very limited role. All in all, States and Judges do not have the prerogative to ignore or regulate those inalienable rights protected and enumerated by the Constitution. It is no coincidence that the Bill of Rights starts off with "Congress shall make no Law..." because the framers not only wanted to keep the States from trampling on these rights as is clearly stated in Article 6, section 2, but they also wanted to keep government from making an end run around the state restrictions by also restricting the Federal government's ability to make laws abridging our rights.

    There is a reason they identified our individual rights as unalienable (which means 'not to be transferred'). It was because they knew that if government had any opportunity to take our rights... it would do so quickly and completely. They sought to prevent that at any level. They blocked States from taking our rights or even from hindering them... and they prevented the Federal government from "making any law" to abridge them.

    Any argument to the contrary must be based on lies and thought up by the desperate and dangerous authoritarian who seeks to control his neighbor.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Washintonian_For_Liberty View Post
    Any argument to the contrary must be based on lies and thought up by the desperate and dangerous authoritarian who seeks to control his neighbor.
    And your inference is?

    I made an observation. You have no clue as to my personal beliefs.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    It would appear that the Court did not feel that restricting a manner of carry was "infringing" the basic "right" to keep and bear arms. Can still carry one openly so they probably felt that fulfilled ones right.
    AFAIK the ruling is for a California case.

    1) California does not actually allow open carry (yeah, I don't count unloaded firearms)
    2) California has a current bill to outlaw unloaded open carry. Just passed their house and was sent to their senate. I bet it passes.
    3) The ruling will be appealed, and will likely lose.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    3) The ruling will be appealed, and will likely lose.
    Probably, since it is the 9th Circuit. They are also the most overturned by the SCOTUS so maybe we'll see a ruling out of the higher court in the next couple of years that some sort of "bearing" must be allowed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    60

    You are speaking of gun rights ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    AFAIK the ruling is for a California case.

    1) California does not actually allow open carry (yeah, I don't count unloaded firearms)
    2) California has a current bill to outlaw unloaded open carry. Just passed their house and was sent to their senate. I bet it passes.
    3) The ruling will be appealed, and will likely lose.
    ... in a state that all but outright REFUSES to issue a CPL (concealed license of whatever name you wish) unless you have due cause for one. California is not a shall issue state. It's a travesty! You pretty much have to have a death threat in hand for them to even issue one.

    Constitution Carry = to hell with a "license" by the government. The only reason they have it is to track you, and tax you on it. Who cares how you carry it. The second amendment doesn't mention it must be a certain way.

    I hear this line all too often. "The constitution isn't for present times anymore. It's for the old days when people needed to be armed in case of indian or outlaw attacks." I call terrorism a viable threat on the nation as a whole, as real as outlaws and indians were in the olden days.

    It makes me want to vomit how little sheeple care about the rights weall as citizens have. Keep your securities and illegal laws. I'll keep my guns and ammo.

    Let us all thank God above we live in Washington where the Governor is only taxes the hell out of us, instead of not allowing us our guns and ammo.

    From Wikipedia, citing CA's May Issue Status:
    California gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California, the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a No-Issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost Shall-Issue environment in rural areas. However, a permit to carry is generally valid statewide, although local ordinances may prohibit open or concealed carry with or without a permit in some jurisdictions, usually by circumventing state uniform firearms laws by restricting the possession, purchasing, and transporting of ammunition in such jurisdictions.

    A gun-owner may apply for a concealed carry permit in a county outside of his or her residence if the applicant's place of business is located there. However to prevent residents of areas with restrictive issuing policies from obtaining permits from jurisdictions with more permissive rules, a business carry permit is only valid in the county where the permit was issued, and the jurisdiction issuing the permit must notify the applicant's home jurisdiction that he or she has a business carry permit in the jurisdiction where his or her workplace is located. For example, a resident of Yolo County (which is effectively a "No-Issue" jurisdiction) with a place of business in Yuba County (which is a "Shall-Issue" jurisdiction in practice), can obtain a business carry permit in Yuba County. The permit is valid only in Yuba County, and the issuing authority in Yuba County must notify Yolo County that the person has been issued a business weapons carry permit in that county.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Drazhar Rakarth View Post
    <snip>Constitution Carry = to hell with a "license" by the government. The only reason they have it is to track you, and tax you on it. Who cares how you carry it. The second amendment doesn't mention it must be a certain way.

    I hear this line all too often. "The constitution isn't for present times anymore. It's for the old days when people needed to be armed in case of indian or outlaw attacks." I call terrorism a viable threat on the nation as a whole, as real as outlaws and indians were in the olden days.

    It makes me want to vomit how little sheeple care about the rights weall as citizens have. Keep your securities and illegal laws. I'll keep my guns and ammo.
    Welcome to OCDO! How did you find us?
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Welcome to OCDO! How did you find us?
    I grabbed about 6 pamflets at the WAC event in puyallup this weekend. No one was at the table sunday when I was there so I thought I would just jump right in.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Drazhar Rakarth View Post
    I grabbed about 6 pamflets at the WAC event in puyallup this weekend. No one was at the table sunday when I was there so I thought I would just jump right in.
    what's a "Drazhar Rakarth"?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    what's a "Drazhar Rakarth"?
    http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/ca...questid=459803

    I'm a Warhammer 40K player from the old days. If you don't play minis, it might be hard to explain. Drazhar was or is the bodyguard of the Archon taking his place in battle and always standing up for his Lord. Being as I stand for the rights of the individual and play this army in open tournaments the name fit. PM any further questions. This thread is not about me and I do not want to sideline it with getting to know myself. Thank yoo
    Last edited by Drazhar Rakarth; 05-18-2011 at 01:22 AM.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Drazhar Rakarth View Post
    ... in a state that all but outright REFUSES to issue a CPL (concealed license of whatever name you wish) unless you have due cause for one. California is not a shall issue state. It's a travesty! You pretty much have to have a death threat in hand for them to even issue one.
    There are numerous sheriff's in California who issue solely for self defense and personal protection.

    This case was designed to be heard by the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and by the SCOTUS.

    Losing at this time is not a bad thing. We control the appeal upward.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Probably, since it is the 9th Circuit. They are also the most overturned by the SCOTUS so maybe we'll see a ruling out of the higher court in the next couple of years that some sort of "bearing" must be allowed.
    Citation for the "most overturned"? Note: I'm referring to rate, not numbers, as the 9th is the largest district.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  16. #16
    Regular Member maclean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Citation for the "most overturned"? Note: I'm referring to rate, not numbers, as the 9th is the largest district.
    The 9th actually falls within the range of the other circuit courts, which is around 75% or so.

    The 9th is unique in it's size, however. It needs to be split. Because of that, it is the most overturned although the rate is consistent.
    Squeak!

Posting Permissions

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