Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:18 AM
cmaynes's Avatar
cmaynes cmaynes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 812
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill billy View Post
BTW, The Brady's are calling this a win for them. Big surprise.

http://www.bradycenter.org/
lets pray their record of similarly themed wins continues.... I didnt know they were gun rights supporters....
  #402  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:19 AM
Donny1's Avatar
Donny1 Donny1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 2,314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny1 View Post
Too bad the rest of the media can't report it.

I have watched 3 different news programs and not one mention of this case ruling.

This is more of a crime than trying to take away our guns! Not pro or con, just nothing.
This is how we got here. People don't even know their rights are being taken away.
__________________
  #403  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:19 AM
Ksmash01 Ksmash01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oaklandish
Posts: 1,297
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

After reading every post on every page so far, all I can say is this:

Don't let a good thing go bad by de-railing a process that has been in the works for sometime, due to a lack of patience.

My understanding of the situation isn't an instant fix to the potholes that are CA's bs gun laws, but is laying the pavement for the long road towards recognizing the potholes(unconstitutional laws), and fixing them.
  #404  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:19 AM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,298
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
Perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Just because some justices disagree with what the history tells us does not mean they are against the consitution. Quite the contrary, they are trying to interpret it in light of a history subject to interpretation. It may not be useful to our objectives as firearm owners to simply call four justices un-American because they ruled in a fashion with which one may disagree.
Um, no - they vote THEIR prejudices, and cite socialist societies or world opinion, when their mere orifice-gazing is deemed too weak.

They are UNAmerican despots who are opposed to being limited by a written Constitution.
  #405  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,679
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
As per susal, a descent into name calling. What a waste.

Read people:

It is important to
keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that
prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-
nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___
(slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-
ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-
ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-
fications on the commercial sale of arms
.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.
What you posted above says nothing new that Heller didn't.

1. Right to defense is MOST ACUTE in the home. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside the home, just that it is recognized as most acute.

2. They suggest that some long-standing regulations are valid, but not all of them. But what is considered long-standing? The roster is not long standing, nor is the California hi-cap magazine ban. How about the AW ban here in Cali? Nope, not long-standing.

3. Sensitive places means to me that, since they continually say "IN" sensitive places, things like the 1000 foot zone around schools in California will go down. And again, it is no long-standing, it is barely 10 15 years old.

All they did was affirm that this doesn't mean that every gun law is subject to being void, but that doesn't mean that all current gun laws stand.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
  #406  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Barabas's Avatar
Barabas Barabas is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 916
Posts: 3,370
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravedigger View Post
ENOUGH! Lets finish the game!
The only way to finish this game is to quit. There is no end. It's a Massively Multiplayer Constitutional Republic, there's no end to the tedious grinding and poorly crafted storylines. Keep doing your dailies and turn-ins and eventually you'll reach the xp cap. Every once in awhile, you might join an epic raid, but those can't happen everyday, even if you have a kick *** guild. Maybe pay to play isn't the best model, but I plan on participating until I get my epic loots.
  #407  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:22 AM
hvengel hvengel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 440
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racefiend View Post
You know, I have heard this many times from pro gun people. Not being one to take anything at someone's word, I looked it up. From the 1792 edition of Sameul Johnson's Dictionary (1 year after BOR ratification):

Regulate - To adjust by rule or method

So it pretty much meant back then what it means now. Sorry to disappoint.

You can check for yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=j6M...page&q&f=false
The term is "well regulated" and it has a completely different meaning than "regulated". Therefore "well regulated" means working correctly, correctly adjusted, functioning as intended and so on. From the same dictionary:

Orderly:... 2. Not ruinultuous; Well regulated.

Time keeping (horology) is one of my hobbies. When horologists see a clock, watch or other time piece that keeps very good time we say it is "well regulated".

People who have a double barreled gun will say the gun is "well regulated" if both barrels shoot to the same point of aim.

In both of these cases the term "well regulated" means to function corrected or properly adjusted and this is how it should be read when reading the 2nd Amendment.

With respect to the militia this means properly equipped, trained and organized. Keep in mind that at that time there were laws that required (almost) everyone (males between 16 and 50 for example) to be members of the militia and to supply the arms necessary to do what a militiaman needed (IE. they had to own a rifle and ammo and other equipment) and to show up for drill. The officers for the militia were to be appointed by a process as set forth by the state and so on. If these conditions were in place the militia was "well regulated" meaning that they had officers, regular drill (training) and each member had the required rifle and ammo. That the militia was functional. Notice that this has almost nothing to do with the regulation of arms other than what arms are required for militiamen. In modern terms this would be like requiring all those who are part of the militia (according to current US code all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not part of the military or the National Guard) to own an M16 and have a certain number of magazines and a certain amount of ammo (and other things like perhaps a uniform or a back pack...).

Notice how the actual meaning of a "well regulated" militia takes things in the opposite direction from what the gun banners want since it would result in most of the population being armed like a typical US Army infantry member. Thus they try to confuse folks by bringing up the definition of regulated but ignoring the meaning of "well regulated".
  #408  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:23 AM
orangeglo's Avatar
orangeglo orangeglo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Sometimes you need to be TOLD what you need. What makes you think there should be exclusivity on the litigation angle? Some sort of neo-elitist RKBA caste system?
When you want to hit the bullseye you take your time and aim. You dont just flip it to full auto and spray and pray hoping to hit the bullseye.

It's about focusing resources. Not about throwing as many cases as we can to further our agenda.
  #409  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:23 AM
dchang0's Avatar
dchang0 dchang0 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,772
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post
Here is some news for you. Many of the SCOTUS decisions that give us rights we now take for granted were decided by slim margins.
Very true. If a matter got all the way to the SCOTUS, then it is almost certainly something of high controversy and contention in society at large.
  #410  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:25 AM
bluestaterebel's Avatar
bluestaterebel bluestaterebel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Near Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 3,053
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junker87 View Post
I would just like to remind you all that if it was President Gore instead of Bush, we would not have had Alito and Roberts, and we would have lost, and the 2nd amendment would have been effectively dead with Gore's picks of Justices.

Elections matter.
+1.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Z50 View Post
Since your myopic view is in concurrence with your cognizant lifespan on this planet, obviously less than 20 years, I will grant you a dispensation.

Figure that out and exercise your mind.....
  #411  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:26 AM
afro's Avatar
afro afro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 748
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Hooray for SCOTUS. I saw the 5-4 decision coming a mile away though.

Got a kick out of this too...
  #412  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:26 AM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,701
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmaynes View Post
lets pray their record of similarly themed wins continues.... I didnt know they were gun rights supporters....
They did win in a small way - any time they get support that a new rule can be generated to infringe rights - that is a loss for freedom.
So what is a win is a loss as well.
In California - nothing changes. Life on the edge continues.
Open Carry will end soon and that is that.
Fear and emotions rule over rights and intellect these days.
Oh Hum - another day in the factory.....
Best of luck to all.
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
  #413  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:27 AM
CriticallyStressed's Avatar
CriticallyStressed CriticallyStressed is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 370
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afro View Post
Hooray for SCOTUS. I saw the 5-4 decision coming a mile away though.

Got a kick out of this too...
It won't take long for someone to change that... still got a laugh out of it though.
  #414  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:28 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
It would violate the advisory opinion rule for the Court to issue a ruling like you have presented. Yet you seem to be arguing the lack of such an order is a LOSS???
Not to defend anyone or jump on a sinking ship, but tell that to Stephen Reinhardt. Read Silveria v. Lockyer or any of the other of the man's reversed opinions. It seems all he does is write advisory opinions.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
  #415  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:31 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,362
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
People...

Here is a list order of priorities, first being of highest priority, and the last being of last priority:
  • CCW Shall Issue (Sykes) or good cause defined as self defense/protection
  • 1000' School Zone carry
  • AB962
  • 10 day waiting period
  • Handgun Roster
  • AWB (bullet button removed)
CCW issuance negates the 1000' GFSZ for those with a permit, right? I agree that issuance is key. The GFSZ as relates to OC is another matter, and one that would drive a lot of emotion from the anti's. Might not be a winner and a poor case could backfire badly.

AB962.... good luck, IMO. GCA68 had a registration requirement for ammo, BATFE re-wrote the regs to get rid of it because it was a waste of time and resources. I don't know that the law itself was changed or repealed let alone challenged, however, I also have to think it could well stand scrutiny just as DROS almost certainly can under a compelling interest of the state argument. Unless AB962 is struck (as it rightly should be) under interstate commerce, we may well be stuck with it until the state comes to the same conclusion that BATFE did.

Waiting periods... again, I think not a lot of traction there. Yeah it's foolish, however I have a hunch it would be a hard row to hoe to get to "unreasonable restriction". Now if there were some modifications to the waiting period, such as CCW holder exempt or subsequent purchases subject only to NICS (like many other states), then that would be a win to me.

The roster... this is right up there with CCW, IMO. The very idea of the roster itself, when combined with the LEO exemption (equal protection argument), is absurd on it's face. The roster falling will open the door to far deeper penetrations of the farce that is much of California's gun law.

AWB... getting the ban overturned is, to me, a high priority, but there are potential land mines for us in that issue so I believe it is going to have to wait it's turn farther down the list. I wouldn't count on success and have a feeling that we may never get rid of the BB.

But that's just one lay opinion. I am certain the the right people already have the strategy outlined over a period of years. And I trust them to know exactly what they are doing.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
  #416  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:33 AM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
People...
Here is a list order of priorities, first being of highest priority, and the last being of last priority:
  • CCW Shall Issue (Sykes) or good cause defined as self defense/protection
  • 1000' School Zone carry
  • AB962
  • 10 day waiting period
  • Handgun Roster
  • AWB (bullet button removed)

.
Add the 10-round Magazine limit to that excellent list!
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
  #417  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:34 AM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,478
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racefiend View Post
You know, I have heard this many times from pro gun people. Not being one to take anything at someone's word, I looked it up. From the 1792 edition of Sameul Johnson's Dictionary (1 year after BOR ratification):

Regulate - To adjust by rule or method

So it pretty much meant back then what it means now. Sorry to disappoint.

You can check for yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=j6M...page&q&f=false

The 1792 dictionary definition of "regulated" is irrelevant. The Supreme Court, in the HELLER decision gives a lengthy dissertation on what "Well Regulated Militia" meant when written, and means now and going forward. As they are the final arbiters of the LEGAL DEFINITIONS of terms used in the United States Constitution your argument is two years too late.
__________________
Life is too short to drive a Ferrari...

  #418  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:34 AM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,298
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guayuque View Post

It incorporates thus providing an opening.
Yeah - an opening that one can take a tank division through...
.
  #419  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:36 AM
Donny1's Avatar
Donny1 Donny1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 2,314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does this bother anyone else?

No mention of this on local news.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/index

But they have plenty of coverage of Kagen.
__________________
  #420  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:38 AM
GatorHunter's Avatar
GatorHunter GatorHunter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 344
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

This is great!! Now we just need to get california back into shape ammo should be available when you need it asap and same with the rifles handgun 3day wait not a big deal lets work it out.............
  #421  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:38 AM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,478
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
Not to defend anyone or jump on a sinking ship, but tell that to Stephen Reinhardt. Read Silveria v. Lockyer or any of the other of the man's reversed opinions. It seems all he does is write advisory opinions.
Yeah... Reinhardt (nay Ripston) is a real barrel of monkeys... I have issues with him that go well beyond the 2nd Amendment. He took the John Paul Stevens correspondence course on appellate review.
__________________
Life is too short to drive a Ferrari...


Last edited by RomanDad; 06-28-2010 at 11:42 AM..
  #422  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 5,884
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racefiend View Post
You know, I have heard this many times from pro gun people. Not being one to take anything at someone's word, I looked it up. From the 1792 edition of Sameul Johnson's Dictionary (1 year after BOR ratification):

Regulate - To adjust by rule or method

So it pretty much meant back then what it means now. Sorry to disappoint.

You can check for yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=j6M...page&q&f=false
Here you go:

Quote:
Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
  #423  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:40 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Escondido
Posts: 2,890
iTrader: 172 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CriticallyStressed View Post
It won't take long for someone to change that... still got a laugh out of it though.
Holy crap!
  #424  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:45 AM
Grakken's Avatar
Grakken Grakken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barabas View Post
The only way to finish this game is to quit. There is no end. It's a Massively Multiplayer Constitutional Republic, there's no end to the tedious grinding and poorly crafted storylines. Keep doing your dailies and turn-ins and eventually you'll reach the xp cap. Every once in awhile, you might join an epic raid, but those can't happen everyday, even if you have a kick *** guild. Maybe pay to play isn't the best model, but I plan on participating until I get my epic loots.
+1 for the WoW reference.
__________________
NRA - Life Member

Guns don't kill people. People Kill people.
  #425  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:46 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

LA Times article on the ruling here.
__________________
Sent from Free America
  #426  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:47 AM
MT1 MT1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 3,657
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CriticallyStressed View Post
It won't take long for someone to change that... still got a laugh out of it though.




That is priceless.
  #427  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:47 AM
ZenMasta's Avatar
ZenMasta ZenMasta is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 142
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Didn't feel like reading the whole 11 pages, but just wanted to jump in here and say right on. I'm not a drinking man, so rather than tipping some beer, I'll go ahead and shoot some skeet instead
  #428  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:48 AM
killmime1234's Avatar
killmime1234 killmime1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,536
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I know this thread's 11 pages in already, but it's not too late to add a WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! ...is it?
  #429  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Bizcuits's Avatar
Bizcuits Bizcuits is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Posts: 6,957
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
  • CCW Shall Issue (Sykes) or good cause defined as self defense/protection
  • 1000' School Zone carry
  • AB962
  • 10 day waiting period
  • Handgun Roster
  • AWB (bullet button removed)
While I agree with CCW being of the highest priority, I totally disagree with the Assault Weapons ban being the lowest. If anything it is a close tie with the CCW's and also probably one of the easier ones to fight considering all the leg work that has already been done in relations to the Hoff's (I think it was him) application denial for an AW permit.

The 10 day wait, and school zones are in my opinion the lowest of priority.
__________________
Owner of Patriot Apparel - Decals, Vintage Signs, Apparel and More!
Ebay Store Link
Etsy Store Link
  #430  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:51 AM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,478
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
I know this thread's 11 pages in already, but it's not too late to add a WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! ...is it?
Woo
__________________
Life is too short to drive a Ferrari...

  #431  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:52 AM
Donny1's Avatar
Donny1 Donny1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Apple Valley, CA
Posts: 2,314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
LA Times article on the ruling here.
Awesome, front page.

So ABC News would rather not even report it? Are they anti?
__________________
  #432  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:53 AM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,298
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill billy
Does this mean that Cruikshank, Miller and Presser are all dead?

Miller's not a bad case, when you strip away the extraneous garbage that the anti's hung on it.

We're left with, "the Court has no evidence before it that sawed-off shotguns are useful in the militia". That evidence is easy to find.

IMHO, Heller and McDonald have not exhausted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - they just focused on PERSONAL self-defense aspects.

...militia aspects wait for another day...
.
  #433  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:54 AM
6114DAVE's Avatar
6114DAVE 6114DAVE is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster,CA
Posts: 4,083
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Default

I'm still waiting for the President to chime in on this decision....think he'll say something negative or would that be political suicide?? oh yeah...WOOOOOOHOOOO!!!!
  #434  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:56 AM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorHunter View Post
This is great!! Now we just need to get california back into shape ammo should be available when you need it asap and same with the rifles handgun 3day wait not a big deal lets work it out.............
A wait of ANY time period "might" make sense for 1st time gun buyers, but NOT for anyone who already owns a gun of any kind.
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
  #435  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:57 AM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,298
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turinreza View Post

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.
IMHO, NO - Heller already bifurcated militia from the personal self-defense aspects of the 2nd.
.
  #436  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:58 AM
mzimmers's Avatar
mzimmers mzimmers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central CA, USA
Posts: 1,526
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
LA Times article on the ruling here.
From the article:
Quote:
In the 19th century, the court limited the reach of the Bill of Rights and said it put limits only on the federal government.
Is this really true? If so, this is the most surprising thing I've read all day.
__________________
M. Zimmers
Born-again Californian (for better or worse)
  #437  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:58 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
I know this thread's 11 pages in already, but it's not too late to add a WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! ...is it?
It's never too late to say WOO HOO!!


It is a victory, and I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I almost see what the nay sayers are saying.

Part of the problem is, due to the efforts of the CGF, and the powers that be, we already had very good intel about the outcome of the decision. Due to who was writing the majority opinion, we already knew we won; before today, the only thing we did not know is to what degree we won. Because today was not the "pie in the sky" P and I, incorporation, AND strict scrutiny, the only thing we basically did today was win the right to file more lawsuits, pay more money, and waste more time. As a result, all we did was win; none of the major goals were addressed so we only gained an inch so people are frustrated. Had we not been so well informed, we might have taken the news with greater zeal.

To those that were not terribly impressed, all I can say is look at any of the other constitutional fights in the past. Emancipation, women's lib, Civil rights, the first amendment.... et cetera... these fights took DECADES. We have gone from "no right to own guns at all" to "right to own guns in the home", a 180 degree turn in less than 4 years. We are WELL ahead of the curve in our fight. People had to die in other causes that were worth fighting; we have come farther without bloodshed. Before the last few years, the SCOTUS had not heard a gun case in 50 years. We are at the beginning of a long fight. All being said, I am very optimistic about the future!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
  #438  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:00 PM
Joe Joe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,732
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legasat View Post
A wait of ANY time period "might" make sense for 1st time gun buyers, but NOT for anyone who already owns a gun of any kind.
Completely agree. I don't really care if a first time buyer has to wait since I'd never have to wait another day in my life
  #439  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:02 PM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Feinstein spouts off in the CBS article:

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: A Win or a Setback?
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
  #440  
Old 06-28-2010, 12:02 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
From the article:


Is this really true? If so, this is the most surprising thing I've read all day.
It is half true....


The court ruled that the bill of rights does not DIRECTLY apply to the states; were it not for the 14th amendment, states would be free to infringe on all rights because it would only apply to the federal government. The 14th amendment was passed to make some of those provisions bound to the states either through Privileges and Immunities, or by Due Process but only applies to fundamental rights. Guns are a fundamental right, so the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment makes them bound to the states, indirectly.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:16 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy