Federal Court Just Dealt a Major Blow to Anti-Gun Advocates in California

[JCliff]

A simultaneously surprising and encouraging ruling from the 9th Circuit. Margin still thinner than we would like, but I can't resist a boisterous "how 'bout them apples?!" to the anti-second amendment crowd!

 

[fuhr52]

Can't win a war unless you win some battles along the way.

 

[gunnerbob]

It makes the 2A community look like a bunch of adolescents who are more interested in beating the other side than promoting their interests.

When the great majority in the middle are needed to overcome the other side, they'll probably decide against joining the adolescents.

Your opinion... smells as bad as mine.

 

[BluesStringer]

Your opinion... smells as bad as mine.

Without wanting to get close enough to make sure, I think your opinion smells like roses compared to the stank of nogods'.

 

[Rhino]

...If California had not banned unloaded open carry without a license, then the first question the court would have had to answer would have been is unloaded open carry sufficient for the purpose of "bearing arms" under the Second Amendment. I am willing to wager they would have found it sufficient and we would have had a different outcome in this case....

Not based on the case cites and analysis they gave. They didn't just affirm a right to carry outside the home. They affirmed the right to carry "an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense". An unloaded gun isn't operable for self-defense. But if anyone was unclear on how that statement might be interpreted, they did cite their agreement with another circuit court case that specifically mentioned a loaded gun:

Our conclusion that the right to bear arms include the right to carry an operable firearmo utside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhaps unsurprising—other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at the very least have assumed, that this is so. Moore, 702 F.3d at936 (“A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”)....

(emphasis added)

They may even say it themselves specifically later in the decision. I haven't gotten through all of it yet. But that part does make it clear that they meant loaded guns.

 

[Rhino]

They even mentioned those eeeevil assault weapons back in 1859!!!!!!

Nine years later, the Texas Supreme Court declared that “[t]he right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute,”permitting even the wielding of a Bowie knife, “the most deadly of all weapons in common use. ”Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 403 (1859). Though the state legislature was free to discourage the carriage of such an “exceeding[ly] destructive weapon,” it could not adopt measures effectively prohibiting its use as a defensive arm....

Wow! Exceedingly destructive! How did Texas ever manage to survive into the 21st century?

 

[Rhino]

It makes the 2A community look like a bunch of adolescents who are more interested in beating the other side than promoting their interests.

When the great majority in the middle are needed to overcome the other side, they'll probably decide against joining the adolescents.

Your opinion... smells as bad as mine.

As uncomfortable as it may sound, he actually has a point. In the world of politics, which is where we must fight this battle unfortunately, the court of public opinion is indeed important to our cause. With that in mind, celebrating a victory for gun rights does go over better than smearing insult in an opponent's face. This is a public web site after all, and it isn't a great stretch to think fence sitters might come here to test the waters so to speak. Yes, the other side does very much engage in the same kind of behavior nogods is speaking of, but we've never really wanted to be like them, have we? Let's face it, those polarized on one side of the battle or the other aren't likely to be swayed. Our battlefield lies in the fence sitters who aren't really swayed one way or the other, or those who are simply seeking information before deciding IF they should be swayed one way or the other. For any of those people who visit this site, our behavior can make a difference. But on the other side of the coin, considering the behavior on so many other threads on this site, you really have to wonder if this thread would really make all that much difference. This forum may be publicly accessible, but we treat it very much like our own little private community. Just like every other typical American family, we aren't Ward and June Cleaver. We have our flaws, but that isn't to say we shouldn't work on them sometimes.

 

[BluesStringer]

As uncomfortable as it may sound, he actually has a point. In the world of politics, which is where we must fight this battle unfortunately, the court of public opinion is indeed important to our cause. With that in mind, celebrating a victory for gun rights does go over better than smearing insult in an opponent's face. This is a public web site after all, and it isn't a great stretch to think fence sitters might come here to test the waters so to speak. Yes, the other side does very much engage in the same kind of behavior nogods is speaking of, but we've never really wanted to be like them, have we? Let's face it, those polarized on one side of the battle or the other aren't likely to be swayed. Our battlefield lies in the fence sitters who aren't really swayed one way or the other, or those who are simply seeking information before deciding IF they should be swayed one way or the other. For any of those people who visit this site, our behavior can make a difference. But on the other side of the coin, considering the behavior on so many other threads on this site, you really have to wonder if this thread would really make all that much difference. This forum may be publicly accessible, but we treat it very much like our own little private community. Just like every other typical American family, we aren't Ward and June Cleaver. We have our flaws, but that isn't to say we shouldn't work on them sometimes.

As Groucho Marx said, "I refuse to join a club that would have me as a member."

I mean, yeah, I feel a connection to this forum, but I never post with the thought in mind of what anyone else thinks of it, whether member, visitor or lurking "fence-sitter." I fight collectivism in all its individuality-killing forms. I like being independent and refuse to be swayed by group-think. I especially reject, dismiss out of hand, and otherwise oppose taking advice from NY leftists on "how to be" when it comes to advocating for my rights.

I am one who is more interested in delving into the crux of the ruling being discussed here rather than ranting at the gun-grabbers who lost this round, but it sure as heck has nothing to do with what they, or current members, future members or lurkers think of me or the board overall. I appreciate your analysis and going to the trouble of quoting the passages you have Rhino, but I have no interest in pigeonholing anyone around here as either June, Ward, Wally or Beaver Cleaver, and don't feel anyone needs to pigeonhole my, or anyone else's, "behavior" as that of Eddie Haskell either. We're a bunch of participating individuals with varying degrees of strong feelings about a variety of subjects. There's only one person here qualified to "work" on the group's "flaws." I'm content to leave it to him whether or not to guide it into a group-think tank.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

I found a kind of "stream of consciousness" analysis earlier today on a site that I know nothing about, but it does a pretty good job of synopsizing the ruling (I think), so I'm going to share it with y'all.


From: Link Removed, who touts themselves as, "Home of the only lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California." I didn't poke around to find what case that refers to, but here's what they have to say about the Peruta ruling"

Update February 13, 2014 - The decision in Link Removed has been published. Although it contains one sentence I did not like, and to which the AG is no doubt going to trumpet from the rooftops it was overall a very good decision which will provide me with paragraph upon paragraph to cite in my next notice of supplemental authority.

That said, the decision is a very narrow one and affects only the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego county and his interpretation of “good cause.” The decision is not binding anywhere else in the state and to anything other than the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego County.

There are lots of things the Sheriff can do. He can tweak his policy to accept “self-defense” as “good cause” for issuing a policy but put all kinds of restrictions on the issuance of the permit which are now valid under California law thanks to the decision in CalGuns.nuts v San Mateo County.

If the Sheriff wants to prohibit concealed carry, even with a permit, on all county owned property (streets, sidewalks, parks, open spaces, etc) he can. If the Sheriff wants to prohibit concealed carry in Gun Free School Zones, he can. If the Sheriff wants to make you wait a year for the required interview to get the permit he can. If the Sheriff decides that you are not of “good moral character” and deny you the permit he can.

Also, the decision applies only to concealable weapons for which the penal code provides for a permits, e.g., handguns. There are no permits/licenses in the state of California which provide for the carrying of long guns for the purpose of self-defense.

If my Sheriff had that many options under the law to restrict the free exercise of my God-given rights, especially after what many are calling a "major defeat for gun-grabbers in CA," I'd move, which is exactly what I did when I left CA forever 22 years ago.

Oh well, I guess we'll see if this "major victory" really bears any fruit. It sure looks from the analysis I just posted that it's not going to be much, if any, easier to carry anywhere in the state, including San Diego.

Blues

 

[nogods]

How does one take care of a bully in school? You, and maybe a friend or two, take the bully off in the corner and kick his ass and then tell everyone the bully isn't so tough after all.... encouraging others to also kick that bully's ass, and maybe even laugh at him, until the bully slinks off and leaves everyone alone.

That's the extent of your problem solving skills?

Sad.

 

[gunnerbob]

As uncomfortable as it may sound, he actually has a point. In the world of politics, which is where we must fight this battle unfortunately, the court of public opinion is indeed important to our cause. With that in mind, celebrating a victory for gun rights does go over better than smearing insult in an opponent's face. This is a public web site after all, and it isn't a great stretch to think fence sitters might come here to test the waters so to speak. Yes, the other side does very much engage in the same kind of behavior nogods is speaking of, but we've never really wanted to be like them, have we? Let's face it, those polarized on one side of the battle or the other aren't likely to be swayed. Our battlefield lies in the fence sitters who aren't really swayed one way or the other, or those who are simply seeking information before deciding IF they should be swayed one way or the other. For any of those people who visit this site, our behavior can make a difference. But on the other side of the coin, considering the behavior on so many other threads on this site, you really have to wonder if this thread would really make all that much difference. This forum may be publicly accessible, but we treat it very much like our own little private community. Just like every other typical American family, we aren't Ward and June Cleaver. We have our flaws, but that isn't to say we shouldn't work on them sometimes.

Meh... If a fence-sitter makes up his or her mind about how to feel about firearms ownership from a web forum and not from actual experience with firearms and their owners, as well as some in depth research into the historical precedents of armed citizenry, the benefits thereof and lack of one... they lack something of reasoning power and will likely flip-flop another dozen or so times depending on how many other websites they visit. Either way, I understand what you're saying and do see the perspective... however, what would the dialogue be here without some sort of victory dances that border on immature insults to people who we probably don't know and never will? We'd all just log in and say, "Yay!.... so what's new?". It'd be boring, y'know. IDK, perhaps I'm alone here....?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
How does one take care of a bully in school? You, and maybe a friend or two, take the bully off in the corner and kick his ass and then tell everyone the bully isn't so tough after all.... encouraging others to also kick that bully's ass, and maybe even laugh at him, until the bully slinks off and leaves everyone alone.

That's the extent of your problem solving skills?

Sad.

Actually it is merely recognizing that the only way to solve the problem of a bully is to out bully the bully. Anything else is just sanctimonious clap trap that makes the one who is too afraid to take the bully head on feel good about themselves.

 

[NavyLCDR]

That was a hell of a roll of the dice.

How can you have any hope of winning the game if you don't roll the dice?

 

[Warbirds]

How can you have any hope of winning the game if you don't roll the dice?

I was reading on Calguns about this. Thus may still go south. This was a 3 judge review. Two conservatives, one communist. If it goes back before the full court the conservatives are outnumbered something like 4 or 5 to 1.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[fuhr52]

If we are going to have judges form opinions based on their political views and not the order of law and the US Constitution, why bother with the courts. These judges are suppose to be above politics (I know they aren't, we don't live in a perfect world). We don't need judges that rule on the order of politics. We have plenty of politicians that do that every day.

 

[nogods]

Actually it is merely recognizing that the only way to solve the problem of a bully is to out bully the bully. Anything else is just sanctimonious clap trap that makes the one who is too afraid to take the bully head on feel good about themselves.

Nope. Bullying the bully exhibits limited intellectual capacity. Like parents who can't think of anyway to discipline their children other than a beating. If we had not developed our intellect beyond those low points we all would have been eaten by the lions and tigers a long time ago.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Actually it is merely recognizing that the only way to solve the problem of a bully is to out bully the bully. Anything else is just sanctimonious clap trap that makes the one who is too afraid to take the bully head on feel good about themselves.

Nope. Bullying the bully exhibits limited intellectual capacity. Like parents who can't think of anyway to discipline their children other than a beating. If we had not developed our intellect beyond those low points we all would have been eaten by the lions and tigers a long time ago.

Actually the inability to differentiate between when a bully needs to be out bullied and raising children... or even problem solving... is merely an attempt to diminish, demean, and ridicule others in order to elevate yourself above those who understand that there are times it is necessary to use methods you consider beneath you. But consider this... no war in History was ever won by someone who wasn't willing to out bully the bully who is attacking. And consider this also... with all the politicians in the world playing sanctimonious intellectual "civilized" problem solvers those same politicians still make sure they have an army handy for the times the bully needs to be out bullied.

And the reason we weren't eaten by the lions and tigers of long ago is we, as in humanity, came up with methods to out bully the bully lions and tigers. No one ever prevented a lion or tiger from eating them by sitting down and having an "intellectual" meeting of the minds.

 

[nogods]

Actually the inability to differentiate between when a bully needs to be out bullied and raising children... or even problem solving... is merely an attempt to diminish, demean, and ridicule others in order to elevate yourself above those who understand that there are times it is necessary to use methods you consider beneath you. But consider this... no war in History was ever won by someone who wasn't willing to out bully the bully who is attacking. And consider this also... with all the politicians in the world playing sanctimonious intellectual "civilized" problem solvers those same politicians still make sure they have an army handy for the times the bully needs to be out bullied.

And the reason we weren't eaten by the lions and tigers of long ago is we, as in humanity, came up with methods to out bully the bully lions and tigers. No one ever prevented a lion or tiger from eating them by sitting down and having an "intellectual" meeting of the minds.

So you think responding to a school house bully and raising children is the equivalent of war?

Will the nonsense never end?

 

[gunnerbob]

Nope. Bullying the bully exhibits limited intellectual capacity. Like parents who can't think of anyway to discipline their children other than a beating. If we had not developed our intellect beyond those low points we all would have been eaten by the lions and tigers a long time ago.

Actually the inability to differentiate between when a bully needs to be out bullied and raising children... or even problem solving... is merely an attempt to diminish, demean, and ridicule others in order to elevate yourself above those who understand that there are times it is necessary to use methods you consider beneath you. But consider this... no war in History was ever won by someone who wasn't willing to out bully the bully who is attacking. And consider this also... with all the politicians in the world playing sanctimonious intellectual "civilized" problem solvers those same politicians still make sure they have an army handy for the times the bully needs to be out bullied.

And the reason we weren't eaten by the lions and tigers of long ago is we, as in humanity, came up with methods to out bully the bully lions and tigers. No one ever prevented a lion or tiger from eating them by sitting down and having an "intellectual" meeting of the minds.

If you hadn't noticed bikenut ( I know you have), nogods likes to pass judgement on people based on extremely limited information, take any and all comments to their most extreme, apply them to any and all situations and all but consider himself the God (though he doesn't believe in any) of reason and knowledge! He is so far above this forum and it's members... he can't seem to get away from it or us.

 

[nogods]

If you hadn't noticed bikenut ( I know you have), nogods likes to pass judgement on people based on extremely limited information, take any and all comments to their most extreme, apply them to any and all situations and all but consider himself the God (though he doesn't believe in any) of reason and knowledge! He is so far above this forum and it's members... he can't seem to get away from it or us.

Typical ad hominem reply.

People like to proclaim they can discipline their children with violence, and solve anti-social behaviors with violence, even though history and intelligence teaches us otherwise.

Taking such ignorance to tasks is not arrogance, it's education.

When your teacher informed you that 2 + 2 was not 3 did you attack her superior intellectual capacity as arrogance?