^ So for Californians, Wisconsinites, and Illini exactly what do you suggest, sitting on our thumbs and being as happy as we can while the courts twiddle around defining the word "is" and the organizations crawl at very best towards the issue? If you had a daughter in CA would you tell her to open carry or leave it at home when she's out and about, given choice between the two? Sure, in shall issue states there's not as much of a need you could possibly argue, but for a lot of places and people it's still very much a need. People who can't conceal very well need it like overweight folks, those in hot climates who must dress accordingly (other than using pocket mouse guns), those with a dress code or other work conditions that don't favor CC well, or those where CC isn't legal in the particular setting but OC is (e.g. Virginians in restaurants) NEED TO Open Carry!
The NEXT volly to fire.......CARRY
- Thread starter Bruxley
- Start date
Gatorhugger
Moderator
You know exactly what I am saying. If you live in CA, I am sorry. But the sit ins and opens carry parties will only work there for a little while, I doubt seriously if it will lead to CC.
In the meantime, you are Screwing it up for every state that worked hard to pass reform laws, Fla and Tx being two of them.
When every business as a matter of course starts putting a "no guns sign" in the window, and it's as common as an open/closed sign, then concealed is dead too. Right now, the law abiding people in CC states go through the process, get licensed, guns stay out of site, businesses and government don't freak out, and it's been really nice for 20 years.
You start pushing this wild west stuff and getting publicity all over the place, you can kiss any kind of carry goodbye. Cause if there is a no guns sign, it's a private business, and no ruling in the world will help any of us. Period. We are all dead in the water.
Look I sympathize with you, but do it in a way that doesn't throw it everyones face and is a bit under the radar and we all win. I know that is against the nature of the more extremists, but we got real change in a lot of states, we are winning! Ruling after ruling is going our way. I think we are going to really screw up the ballgame when we are ahead by 20 in the 4th quarter. We are on a roll. Have patience. Or move to a better state.
In the meantime, you are Screwing it up for every state that worked hard to pass reform laws, Fla and Tx being two of them.
When every business as a matter of course starts putting a "no guns sign" in the window, and it's as common as an open/closed sign, then concealed is dead too. Right now, the law abiding people in CC states go through the process, get licensed, guns stay out of site, businesses and government don't freak out, and it's been really nice for 20 years.
You start pushing this wild west stuff and getting publicity all over the place, you can kiss any kind of carry goodbye. Cause if there is a no guns sign, it's a private business, and no ruling in the world will help any of us. Period. We are all dead in the water.
Look I sympathize with you, but do it in a way that doesn't throw it everyones face and is a bit under the radar and we all win. I know that is against the nature of the more extremists, but we got real change in a lot of states, we are winning! Ruling after ruling is going our way. I think we are going to really screw up the ballgame when we are ahead by 20 in the 4th quarter. We are on a roll. Have patience. Or move to a better state.
DMMickey
The right to bear those arms IS addressed directly in the Opinion of the Court on page 19:
There is no word parsing required. In fact Scalia goes to great lengths leading up to this summation of the the meaning of the text of the Second Amendment and above is the now affirmed definition of the Second Amendment.
Carry is now a stated constitutional right, specified directly in the first bolded statement in the above quote.
Was his complaint not only that he couldn't get the required registration etc. amounted to a ban but ALSO that the requirement to keep lawful arms "disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" rendering them inoperable.
The first went to a ban on arms, the second on 'bearing' those arms. Both were challenge by Heller.
from p.2 of the Opinion of the Court:
Scalia describes rendering it inoperable is an infringement on 'bearing' those arms.
from p.57
By regulating that the weapons, although lawful (long guns), to be so borne as to render them useless for defense is unconstitutional.
Heller did complain that the bearing of long guns was infringed by the trigger lock/disassembled requirement, and it was determined "clearly unconstitutional".
I believe that Scalia is giving subtle hints by establish a precident in finding the right to bear arms in a way so as to deal with a confrontation....carry......
The right to bear those arms IS addressed directly in the Opinion of the Court on page 19:
emphasis mine
There is no word parsing required. In fact Scalia goes to great lengths leading up to this summation of the the meaning of the text of the Second Amendment and above is the now affirmed definition of the Second Amendment.
Carry is now a stated constitutional right, specified directly in the first bolded statement in the above quote.
Was his complaint not only that he couldn't get the required registration etc. amounted to a ban but ALSO that the requirement to keep lawful arms "disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" rendering them inoperable.
The first went to a ban on arms, the second on 'bearing' those arms. Both were challenge by Heller.
from p.2 of the Opinion of the Court:
Scalia describes rendering it inoperable is an infringement on 'bearing' those arms.
from p.57
emphasis mine
By regulating that the weapons, although lawful (long guns), to be so borne as to render them useless for defense is unconstitutional.
Heller did complain that the bearing of long guns was infringed by the trigger lock/disassembled requirement, and it was determined "clearly unconstitutional".
I believe that Scalia is giving subtle hints by establish a precident in finding the right to bear arms in a way so as to deal with a confrontation....carry......
and that challeges to laws restricting carry infringe upon that right. Carry, in my opinion would win the challenge and leave all jurisdictions no choice but to allow it. Nation wide carry insists that the 2nd be incorporated as it will then be almost defacto incorporation. At that point WHAT gets kept and borne become fair game and scrutiny would become strict.
There are a selfish few that live in states that accept their constitutional right to keep and bear arms that feel as long as they have theirs the rest of us can just roll over and die or sit back and see their daughters raped. Scalia went to great pains to affirm the right to carry arms, even if he couldn't get Kennedy to go along with conceal carry. That is one of only two open doors in California. Getting the courts to affirm the incorporation of the Second Amendment and open carry challenges will leave our commissars (after they tell the people and the SCOTUS to pound sand and lose) only the options of open carry or mandating concealed carry. A careful reading of the decision makes it pretty obvious that this is exactly what the Scalia had in mind.
The second door will be challenges under the 14th amendment to the state's two tier system with an "exempted class". This was a moot point while the 9th Circus refused to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now that it is, the court will be forced to place everyone that is not otherwise restricted on the same level. And if you think the police unions are going to give up automatic concealed carry for their retirees you're nuts. The public employees' unions own the state Democratic Party and they will force the legislature's hand. Note that this is not an attack on LEOs, it's just the only other way.
Oh and for those that 'got theirs' and think to heck with us... California's Democrat commissars are coming after you. That's right YOU and YOUR rights. They've stripped us of any value to our votes and are essentially appointed to their seats by party hacks. Now they are taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional law. By becoming a sanctuary state and welcoming unlimited millions of illegals they can strip your states of representation and appoint their own extreme leftists to congress. Now do you really want to continue to help them to drive the remaining conservatives out of the state? To give them an even more free hand? I know I'm leaving along with thousands of others if we don't have some kind of carry pretty darn quick.
The second door will be challenges under the 14th amendment to the state's two tier system with an "exempted class". This was a moot point while the 9th Circus refused to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now that it is, the court will be forced to place everyone that is not otherwise restricted on the same level. And if you think the police unions are going to give up automatic concealed carry for their retirees you're nuts. The public employees' unions own the state Democratic Party and they will force the legislature's hand. Note that this is not an attack on LEOs, it's just the only other way.
Oh and for those that 'got theirs' and think to heck with us... California's Democrat commissars are coming after you. That's right YOU and YOUR rights. They've stripped us of any value to our votes and are essentially appointed to their seats by party hacks. Now they are taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional law. By becoming a sanctuary state and welcoming unlimited millions of illegals they can strip your states of representation and appoint their own extreme leftists to congress. Now do you really want to continue to help them to drive the remaining conservatives out of the state? To give them an even more free hand? I know I'm leaving along with thousands of others if we don't have some kind of carry pretty darn quick.
Gatorhugger
Moderator
I wish your whole Dam state would slide off into the Ocean. Nothing but trouble for everybody, hope you lose both suits because you are the selfish ones. We get 40 states that have no trouble passing nice CCW laws, and the ignorant Cali gunners are trying to screw it up for everybody. Nobody told you to live in the land of nutcases. Move if your life is in danger and your Commissars or whatever the hell you have out there won't let you have a cap pistol.
And Raping your daughters? Oh the hyperbole and rampant hysteria. The bunch of you are too wierd for firearms. Burn Ca, Burn.
Bunch of selfish bozos. The world revolves around California. NO NO NO.
:
And Raping your daughters? Oh the hyperbole and rampant hysteria. The bunch of you are too wierd for firearms. Burn Ca, Burn.
Bunch of selfish bozos. The world revolves around California. NO NO NO.
:Gatorhugger
Moderator
Good, one out of 9 will never carry a firearm. 
It was exactly that kind of "I got mine and to heck with you" attitude that the Brady Bunch used to strip Americans of their rights. The 'I don't have a black rifle so and don't need one so they are welcome to take yours as long as they don't touch my hunting rifle' attitude. Divide and conquer. And we still see it with the 'I got my CCW and to heck with everyone else' attitude. Bans are just hunky dory as long as you are not effected. Well why should I give a rat's tail about your rights if you aren't willing to fight for mine? Sorry bubba but the world doesn't just revolve around you. You're either with us or with the Brady Bunch. 
WELL........the real problem with advancing on what the Heller decision affirmed is becoming clear..IN FIGHTING. Do you guys remember the topic here?
I'll give the antis one thing, their single mindedness.......sheesh
It's no wonder this is such a hard fight..........
What do you guys AGREE ON about carry......let's start there. Then maybe a new thread about what people from OUTSIDE a State can do to inflence laws WITHIN another State.....sound ok there cowboys?
I'll give the antis one thing, their single mindedness.......sheesh
It's no wonder this is such a hard fight..........
What do you guys AGREE ON about carry......let's start there. Then maybe a new thread about what people from OUTSIDE a State can do to inflence laws WITHIN another State.....sound ok there cowboys?
Bruxley my friend you have to understand the frustration we have with those that would and have sold us down the river year in and year out. I'm not pointing at a person but at an attitude. I've been on boards a long time and I've watched in frustration all of those willing to accept an assault weapons ban because all they cared about was hunting. Others willing to accept high-cap bans because their O/U only held two. And others tell me to pound sand when I've asked them to write letters. That's how we lost to the Bradys over and over. Gun owners are a self centered lot. Too flipping cheap to donate to the NRA or any other group and full of plenty of excuses (and other stuff) about why the NRA wasn't perfect enough to be worth their hard earned $35/year. 
Frankly I've heard enough of that me me me and to heck with you BS to choke a whale and it's getting old. So pardon me if my crapola meter is nearing TILT.
Frankly I've heard enough of that me me me and to heck with you BS to choke a whale and it's getting old. So pardon me if my crapola meter is nearing TILT.
joseph3724
Inactive
You would have trouble convincing me that the majority of people in Calif are for ALL the current firearms laws. The real problem we have is that over the years our Congressional Districts have been mutalated to the point that there are two cities that are calling all the plays. L.A. and S.F. loonies are the LOUD squeeky wheels.
Heller, and later decissions based on heller (including incorporation), will force the issue here. It would help greatly if our Districting was overhauled. That is, indeed, our own fault. We had an opertunity to fix it a couple of years ago and were scared out of it by the very politicians that had the most to lose.
Joe
Heller, and later decissions based on heller (including incorporation), will force the issue here. It would help greatly if our Districting was overhauled. That is, indeed, our own fault. We had an opertunity to fix it a couple of years ago and were scared out of it by the very politicians that had the most to lose.
Joe
Gatorhugger
Moderator
You compare apples and oranges. This isn't the assault ban, this isn't another restriction that one side lets slide and the other is wronged.
WE ARE WINNING. Where we disagree is the way you are going about change in CA. My views are clearly stated, it is too radical, too fast, and may screw up the whole movement. ( sort of like violent vs non violent MLK change)
Nobody is a traitor to your rights. But have some common sense and see what you are doing to yourselves and the entire gun movement by trying to reform the nations most restrictive laws in a population of liberals. This won't happen fast if at all, but selfish CA members dont give a crap. If every businesss in America puts out "no guns allowed" signs because of your hastiness, Who will benefit??????????????????? Answer the one question please. We will all be ruined.
WE ARE WINNING. Where we disagree is the way you are going about change in CA. My views are clearly stated, it is too radical, too fast, and may screw up the whole movement. ( sort of like violent vs non violent MLK change)
Nobody is a traitor to your rights. But have some common sense and see what you are doing to yourselves and the entire gun movement by trying to reform the nations most restrictive laws in a population of liberals. This won't happen fast if at all, but selfish CA members dont give a crap. If every businesss in America puts out "no guns allowed" signs because of your hastiness, Who will benefit??????????????????? Answer the one question please. We will all be ruined.
There is a serious flaw in that, Gator. The problem is that CA's laws spread because there is in every state a small(er) necommunist outpost that gets encouragement from how things go here, similar states like IL and NY that lump together with CA's congress critters to form a voting block that exerts influence on the federal level, and people from the neocommunist held states overflow into free states and try to turn them rotten, bringing CA's/NY's/MA's/NJ's ideologies with them. The neocommunist states' anti 2A laws MUST be squashed to wipe out the threat of them expanding and taking over. Don't believe me? Microstamping popped up in at least 10 (14 I believe) states immediately after it passed in CA. Ammo limiting bills hit another 10, but thankfully were defeated...for now.
You may feel comfortable gambling by toying around with the antis rather than extinguishing their movement, but many of us do not. Also the firearms owners of CA should demand the right to choose their home and place of work without having to toss their rights out the window. CA's laws were meant to tell gun owners either give up or move--that cannot be allowed to stand.
You may feel comfortable gambling by toying around with the antis rather than extinguishing their movement, but many of us do not. Also the firearms owners of CA should demand the right to choose their home and place of work without having to toss their rights out the window. CA's laws were meant to tell gun owners either give up or move--that cannot be allowed to stand.
joseph3724
Inactive
Is this the statement of somebody that has simply lost their temper briefly and perhaps should have avoided a keyboard for a little while? I think it's great that your happy with the rights your state allows you to have. My 2nd Amendment rights, including the right to carry, are going to be extinct if we in Ca don't start raising the bar. The above statement tells me we are not on the same side in the same regaurd as my politicians also feel they know what is "best" for me.
It appears, at least from what's been written here, that it might not be so long before California and other States will have to amit that people have a right to carry a gun if they wish. I'm sure it will require a license here, but the Legislature will have to decide weather they prefer Open Carry or Concealed.
Joe
Vol. Firefighter in the
State of Calif.
Jim,
Speaking of a 14th Amendment - equal protection action against the state. Doesn't California still have a law on the books requiring the state to pick up the tab in any civil rights suit against the state? If memory serves they did at one time, but I could be wrong. If so wouldn't an equal protection action fit?
Speaking of a 14th Amendment - equal protection action against the state. Doesn't California still have a law on the books requiring the state to pick up the tab in any civil rights suit against the state? If memory serves they did at one time, but I could be wrong. If so wouldn't an equal protection action fit?
Gatorhugger
Moderator
Jim you did not answer the question. As usual. So I will ask again.
If sit ins and open carrys result in LE and business owners insisting that every business post no guns allowed signs, then what good will your permit do?
They can do it. They will do it. And if you carry after a sign has been posted you are in deep dung. Effectively it will kill ANY KIND OF CARRY.
We are under the radar so to speak with CC in most states. The courts are in our favor. It's is working.
However, you try open carry in a liberal anti gunner state like CA, EXPECT the no guns allowed signs to spring up like mushrooms EVERYWHERE.
Your best intentions may be suicidal to the pro gun movement, you can spout constitutional rights all you want, when those signs start going up on private property it will spread like a disease. No court in the land will make a business owner allow guns on their private property.
If sit ins and open carrys result in LE and business owners insisting that every business post no guns allowed signs, then what good will your permit do?
They can do it. They will do it. And if you carry after a sign has been posted you are in deep dung. Effectively it will kill ANY KIND OF CARRY.
We are under the radar so to speak with CC in most states. The courts are in our favor. It's is working.
However, you try open carry in a liberal anti gunner state like CA, EXPECT the no guns allowed signs to spring up like mushrooms EVERYWHERE.
Your best intentions may be suicidal to the pro gun movement, you can spout constitutional rights all you want, when those signs start going up on private property it will spread like a disease. No court in the land will make a business owner allow guns on their private property.
At one time I believe that it may have been mandated. That's why the ACLU has always been so eager to file even marginal civil rights actions. They got paid win lose or draw due to a provision n the law. Now I don't remember details and it may no longer be in effect.
LE cannot get involved on a no guns sign campaign because that's now a civil rights violation and they can be sued. Businesses are in business to make money. If posting signs costs them customers (I'd go elsewhere) the signs go away - welcome to capitalism 101. What we have here is simple - Mr 'I got Mine and To Heck With Everyone Else' saying screw those without access to permits. Learn to deal with it. We aren't going away and we are going to keep fighting for our rights and no Brady Bunch sympathizer or self centered individual or group is going to stop us. Deal with that to!
At this point your blatherings are falling on deaf ears. It's time to move on to something actually interesting.