Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given that the SCOTUS has said the Second Amendment applies to states, it's really only a matter of time before the anti-carry laws of CA are gutted.
Read it again. That ruling was a pyrhic victory. The SCOTUS said they had to let you keep and bear arms...they also said it could be reasonably regulated.
Read it again. That ruling was a pyrhic victory. The SCOTUS said they had to let you keep and bear arms...they also said it could be reasonably regulated.
Did you read the dicta? They referenced 19th century cases that allowed restrictions on concealed carry, but which forbade restrictions on open carry. As the second amendment applies to bearing arms as well as keeping, some form of carry must be freely allowed. Reasonable regulation does not include a total ban on carrying (which for most Californians, their laws do).
Did you read the dicta? They referenced 19th century cases that allowed restrictions on concealed carry, but which forbade restrictions on open carry. As the second amendment applies to bearing arms as well as keeping, some form of carry must be freely allowed. Reasonable regulation does not include a total ban on carrying (which for most Californians, their laws do).
They did not speak to the question of what was reasonable. Just that it could be done. The implicaton was that they were not going to allow a free for all...that many city and state laws would be judged reasonable.
I suspect it will unfold over the next years. And if the court changes it may go strongly in anti-gun directions.
They did not speak to the question of what was reasonable. Just that it could be done. The implicaton was that they were not going to allow a free for all...that many city and state laws would be judged reasonable.
I suspect it will unfold over the next years. And if the court changes it may go strongly in anti-gun directions.
They made it pretty clear heavy restrictions like Chicago had will not be tolerated. No carry will not be allowed. CA can kiss its statist stupidity good bye.
They made it pretty clear heavy restrictions like Chicago had will not be tolerated. No carry will not be allowed. CA can kiss its statist stupidity good bye.
They said you cannot ban handguns or handguns at home. They said nothing about carry.
They said you cannot ban handguns or handguns at home. They said nothing about carry.
The case was not concerning carry so they couldn't, but they did give it a brief mention in the Heller case dicta. Are you saying there's no right to bear arms in the Second Amendment?
The case was not concerning carry so they couldn't, but they did give it a brief mention in the Heller case dicta. Are you saying there's no right to bear arms in the Second Amendment?
Actually the USSC did. The amendment is pretty much open ended. The USSC said it is not.
So the reality battle was lost.
You can bear arms...sometimes and some arms. But the uSSC made it clear the amendment does not mean what it says.
Actually the USSC did. The amendment is pretty much open ended. The USSC said it is not.
So the reality battle was lost.
You can bear arms...sometimes and some arms. But the uSSC made it clear the amendment does not mean what it says.
I don't think you read it, or you're in a state of denial.
Some portions of their commentary:
"At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. . . .
"[T]he meaning of ‘bear arms’ that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby ‘bear arms’ connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving ‘bear Arms’ its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. Worse still, the phrase ‘keep and bear Arms’ would be incoherent. The word ‘Arms’ would have two different meanings at once: ‘weapons’ (as the object of ‘keep’) and (as the object of ‘bear’) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying ‘He filled and kicked the bucket’ to mean ‘He filled the bucket and died.’ Grotesque.
"If ‘bear arms’ means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (‘for the purpose of self defense’ or ‘to make war against the King’). But if ‘bear arms’ means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add ‘for the purpose of killing game.’ The right ‘to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game’ is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that ‘to bear arms’ is not limited to military use."
""Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.’"
SACRAMENTO, CA (AP) - California lawmakers have sent the governor a bill making it a misdemeanor for openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, a practice popular among certain gun enthusiasts.
In all the years I've lived in California I have attended many political events pluss all kinds of other happenings and I have never seen anyone carry a handgun in the open in the public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
