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-in-seattle/fed-judge-s-ruling-on-concealed-carry-faces-appeal

Dave Workman said:

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-in-seattle/fed-judge-s-ruling-on-concealed-carry-faces-appeal

Click to expand...

Sounds like a worthy case to me.

They do good work.

Dave Workman said:

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-in-seattle/fed-judge-s-ruling-on-concealed-carry-faces-appeal

Click to expand...

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.

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Washintonian_For_Liberty said:

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.

Click to expand...

And your inference is?

I made an observation. You have no clue as to my personal beliefs.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave_pro2a said:

3) The ruling will be appealed, and will likely lose.

Click to expand...

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.

You are speaking of gun rights ...

Dave_pro2a said:

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.

Click to expand...

... 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.

Drazhar Rakarth said:

<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.

Click to expand...

Welcome to OCDO! How did you find us?

gogodawgs said:

Welcome to OCDO! How did you find us?

Click to expand...

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.

Drazhar Rakarth said:

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.

Click to expand...

what's a "Drazhar Rakarth"?

Metalhead47 said:

what's a "Drazhar Rakarth"?

Click to expand...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1050197&_requestid=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

Drazhar Rakarth said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

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.

heresolong said:

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.

Click to expand...

Citation for the "most overturned"? Note: I'm referring to rate, not numbers, as the 9th is the largest district.

Tawnos said:

Citation for the "most overturned"? Note: I'm referring to rate, not numbers, as the 9th is the largest district.

Click to expand...

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.