|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#282
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
RomanDad, that's a great visualization. |
#283
|
||||
|
||||
I apologize if this has already been answered, but I don't see it anywhere.
I know that CGF has at least 2 cases on hold until the resolution of the Chicago case. Are those cases now off hold or do we need to wait for the lower court to revise their opinions as well? |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
I shamelessly copied this from yahoo news. It's a simple FAQ for today's decision. I think it'll provide some answers for those of us who want to sidestep the bickering that's rampant in this thread and get some upfront answers. Some of the answers might not be entirely correct, but that's what you get with Yahoo news.
Quote:
Last edited by Eargasm; 06-28-2010 at 9:11 AM.. |
#286
|
||||
|
||||
Outstanding!
Though always cautionary, once again 5-4 on what is a core Constitutional premise.
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.' - John Adams http://www.usdebtclock.org/ |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
WHOA! What? No more 10 day wait?!?
|
#288
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We still don’t have a right to indictment by Grand Jury (Amendment V), a right to jury trial in civil cases (Amendment VII), or protection against excessive bail and fines (Amendment VIII). However, we finally have the second amendment at the state and local level. Quote:
Incorporating the first amendment free speech was a 7-2 decision. Establishment clause of religion was a 5-4 decision, freedom of press was also a 5-4. Freedom of assembly and free exercise were both unanimous. I think most people here aren’t familiar with the Supreme Court, a 5-4 decision is extremely common and is a rather normal result, not a “Squeeker” by any means. Quote:
This is something most of you need to realize: The Bill of Rights, as written, was only ever intended to apply to the Federal government. It was a way of reassuring the states and getting the Constitution ratified, many framers didn’t even think the Bill was necessary as this was common sense stuff at the time. The states could (and sometimes did) ban "rights" like free speech, ban gun ownership, perform unwarranted search and seizures, etc. and this was 100% Constitutional! Or it was until the “liberal” (at the time) Justices of the SCOTUS started deciding that parts of the Bill of Rights would apply to the state and local governments as well. This excluded the 2nd Amendment - until today. So to make this extremely clear since it’s a common mistake I see here: States banning guns was Constitutional. Today’s decision changed that. It’s a huge step. Technically you could say this decision results in “bigger government,” it’s an expansion of Federal government intruding on state rights not directly sponsored or intended by the Constitution (See how easy Glenn Beck style spin works?)… But today was a damn good decision!! |
#289
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter - Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff |
#290
|
||||
|
||||
The Court actually said that in terms of what is protected by the 2A, there is some higher level than strict, where no regulation is allowed at all. But of course what exactly IS protected by the 2A it still (for the most part) very much up in the air. Where and how the courts will draw the line on various issues remains to be seen.
__________________
I do not provide legal services or practice law (yet). The troublemaker formerly known as Blackwater OPS. |
#291
|
||||
|
||||
I believe he was speculating the 10 day wait wouldn't survive further cases. To be clear, there is still a 10-day wait in California.
My personal opinion is that the initial 10-day wait will survive future cases, but that subsequent waits don't even pass "rational basis", so I think for those of us who are already gun-owners, that will eventually become a non-issue.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter - Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Or, would the dealer be held not accountable for following state law? . |
#293
|
||||
|
||||
from the Volokh Conspiracy
http://volokh.com/2010/06/28/todays-opinions/ Quote:
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
heh, what a great day.
LOL!! hahahahahahahah LOL!
I expect lots of changes over the years, we got them on the ropes, we need to keep punching
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
I don't want to be a debbie downer but I'm in the camp of those who don't see this really doing much for us in CA. While our laws are really bad they aren't an outright ban. I'd love to hear what the smart guys from CGF say about it, though.
Last edited by CharAznable; 06-28-2010 at 9:20 AM.. |
#297
|
||||
|
||||
Congratulations!
I believe the ruling just stated that the 2nd Amemdment is incorporated and thus any law that prohibits a person from COMPLETELY owning a handgun in the home is unconstitutional. The WAY to BEAR that handgun has not been defined by the SCOTUS. (such as what limitations of rounds that handgun can have, what kind of ammo, how much ammo, etc) I feel that the portion of the Second Amendent "a well REGULATED militia" will be used by the Antis to state that the portion "well regulated" applies to the militia AND to the PEOPLE In the same way that the "right to bear arms" applies both to the militia and the PEOPLE. Thus, the next battles will be what does it mean to "well regulate" people owning handguns or firearms in their home. Surely, the person must at least own 1 round of ammo up to a WELL REGULATED amount. Those in favor of the 2nd Amemdment will use the term "well regulated" to say, if the MILITIA is well regulated yet the MILITIA has firearms other than handguns (rifles, semi-autos) similar to those of the Military in order to OPPOSE an invading force or protect the home land, then that "well regulated" part allows for the "people" to own (rifles, semi-autos) under the same "well regulated" way the militia is bearing arms. Since all citizens are inherently part of the militia then "well regulated" should allow for owning and bearing such arms as at least an infrantry man in the militia. However, since an infrantry man does not own the tanks or bazookas or rocket launchers in the military but makes use of those types of weapons that belong to every member of the militia, then the "well regulated" portion should limit individual persons from owning such weapons (tanks, bazooka, rocket launchers) in the home because that would not follow the "well regulated" portions of the militia. IMHO. Last edited by turinreza; 06-28-2010 at 9:19 AM.. |
#298
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The way this should be challenged is that we'd put together a case suing the state for violating our 2nd Amendment rights (similar to Peña).
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter - Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#300
|
||||
|
||||
from the Volokh Conspiracy
http://volokh.com/2010/06/28/todays-opinions/ Quote:
and http://volokh.com/2010/06/28/second-...nth-amendment/
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/ |
#301
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You say all this as if incorporation wasn't the point of McDonald. Anyone who believed that McDonald was going to overturn any law other than the Chicago/Deer Park handgun bans weren't up to speed. You HAVE created a strawman in arguing against a position only the most naive (which is curable) held. Incorporation is all about now having the standing to overturn unconstitutional law, which recent court cases proved we didn't have until today. If you are an attorney, you ought to know that the government doesn't just remove sections of law, whole cloth, because of a court case. Each little niggling detail has to be argued in the courts now, which is AWESOME because we actually have standing to do so now. What other method do we have within the law, to address constitutionality? This is a WIN! There is no other way to spin this without being dishonest. This could have been a different kind of win, had we incorporated under PorI, but it is nevertheless THE stepping stone that was required to overturn generations of civil rights violations and racist/classist legislation. The right to self defense is unequivocally a civil right. No more arguments. |
#302
|
||||
|
||||
And Robert Levy, who got the whole ball rolling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...mbia_v._Heller
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor |
#303
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, nobody has said it in a few pages, so:
Wooo Hoooo!!! Yes, it is a small step. And there will be no radical or instantaneous change to the laws here. Not right away. But this is a very important step. It opens the door for us. Now the big brains on our side have a bit more legal footing when they take their cases to court. Long term, this baby step will be HUGE.
__________________
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
All this means is that we can start fighting now. And there's no guarantee at all that we'll win this fight. |
#306
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I do not provide legal services or practice law (yet). The troublemaker formerly known as Blackwater OPS. |
#307
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#308
|
|||
|
|||
What a nice change to wake up to good news!
If anyone wants to buy me a Christmas present, I'll take a California CCW permit.
__________________
"As often happens, misinformation and half-truths become pillars of public opinion as they receive amplification by politicians and other public figures through the media, without scrutiny from the researcher." Bill Chevalier, The ABC's of Reloading (2008) |
#309
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#310
|
||||
|
||||
What would be the next case for CGF?
Peña vs. CID - which pends on Nordyke (gun shows), which pends on McDonald... Can Peña vs. CID be directly addressed? And happenstance - I pick up a pistol today!! Double WIN!!! |
#311
|
||||
|
||||
Regulated, in this context, does not have the same meaning today as it did when the framers wrote the 2nd. Well regulated means only finely tuned, precise, well made, etc. You might notice grandfather clocks that state "REGULATED" on the face, meaning accurate and tested.
|
#312
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I do not provide legal services or practice law (yet). The troublemaker formerly known as Blackwater OPS. |
#313
|
||||
|
||||
I see having the right to own, and defend as being upheld helping CCW but what about the roster? Since it says states still have the right to certain regulation.
__________________
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Again, it's what people thought they were going to get out of McDonald, even after repeatedly being told here what would happen. Personally, I view it as nice but not impacting me at all - yet.
|
#316
|
||||
|
||||
I hope it is more like a storm in the desert. Beautiful things start to pop up everywhere.
Quote:
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#317
|
||||
|
||||
Is that from Alito? Do you have a page number for that?
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#318
|
||||
|
||||
I never thought that, my glass is not half full. I was asking how, going forward, this will help challenge the rosters limitations.
__________________
|
#319
|
||||
|
||||
Oh no I agree, it has nothing to do with today's decision. Just thinking out loud. Your response raised a couple more questions in my head, but I'll stop hijacking this thread.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#320
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
FFLs are not the enforcers [nor government administrators or advocates] of the statute, DOJ BOF and BATFE are.
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|