Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:23 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Look, just because Miss Kitty said "leave your irons at the door boys" doesn't mean it was legal for her to do so. They wanted a drink so they indulged her.
If she had said, "Leave your irons at the door, boys, or stay out.", then that would have been legal.

She can't prevent them from carrying guns. No one can.

But she can keep people from entering her property (or in this case her boss's property if he says so) for any reason... including if they are carrying guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:30 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I think the point being made is that Californian cannot simultaneously restrict both open carry and concealed. The may be able to restrict concealed carry but would have to allow unrestricted open carry.
Yep, that's the essence of the ruling.

This time.

Nows we ned to get working on the next case, and the one after that.

We've got about 30% of what the 2nd amendment says now, with this latest ruling.

Time to start working on getting the next 30%.

And after we secure that, then we start on the remainder.

The gun-grabbers will never give up peacefully. You'll never hear them say, "Gee, I guess the 2nd amendment is serious when it makes no exceptions to its statement that the right shall not be infringed, and allows no 'reasonable restrictions'. So we'll just repeal all our so-called 'gun control' laws to properly align ourselves with the Constitution."

In your dreams.

They aren't interested in obeying the Constitution or anything else. So they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way. Not because kicking and screaming is a GOOD thing, but because they choose to react that way, every time.

Time to take out the trash. Some more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:41 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,189,163 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Sheriff's office is going to be busy!!
The Sheriff is elected by the people. What if he doesn't comply?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
The Sheriff is elected by the people. What if he doesn't comply?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Q: Why does the Constitution have a second amendment?

A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:52 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,023,289 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
The Sheriff is elected by the people. What if he doesn't comply?
Criminal prosecution and removal from office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 08:54 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,189,163 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Criminal prosecution and removal from office.
For what, refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law? Do you know the huge majority of Colorado Sheriffs have pledged not to enforce Colorado's unconstitutional gun laws? No, the Feds will have to come in and do the dirty work. Some Sheriffs have also said they will arrest federals intruding into state business.

Last edited by Bideshi; 02-14-2014 at 09:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 09:00 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,779,270 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
For what, refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law? Do you know the huge majority of Colorado Sheriffs have pledged not to enforce Colorado's unconstitutional gun laws?
I thought you meant, what if the Sheriff refused to grant carry permits to people on grounds that they hadn't shown "good cause", in the face of this latest ruling that the "good cause" dodge is unconstitutional.

In other words, what if the Sheriff kept violating the constitution even after this court pointed out that what he was doing, was unconstitutional?

Which is why I provided the link I did in reply, to an incident where a Sheriff did exactly that... and the people reacted.

P.S. They didn't just react with petitions and polite requests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 09:11 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,189,163 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
I thought you meant, what if the Sheriff refused to grant carry permits to people on grounds that they hadn't shown "good cause", in the face of this latest ruling that the "good cause" dodge is unconstitutional.

In other words, what if the Sheriff kept violating the constitution even after this court pointed out that what he was doing, was unconstitutional?

Which is why I provided the link I did in reply, to an incident where a Sheriff did exactly that... and the people reacted.

P.S. They didn't just react with petitions and polite requests.
Obviously you vote him out next election or have a recall, which we can't do with political appointee activist federal judges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,521,957 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post


All states should be "shall issue" and there should be universal reciprocity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2014, 09:31 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,189,163 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
All states should be "shall issue" and there should be universal reciprocity.
We have to battle state by state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top