[kev]

In interesting article in the LA times, that to me, reflects the difference in opinion about what our right to keep and bear arms means.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

While California law authorizes people to seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they show “good cause,” county sheriffs in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco routinely deny such requests by establishing a high bar to meet that standard. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7-4 decision, upheld this enforcement policy.

“There is no 2nd Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the appeals court said.

There was a reason why the founding fathers passed the Militia act of 1792,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

The Militia act was later revised to establish the national guard.

By saying, “There is no 2nd Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the Ninth circuit has limited the ability of the county Sheriff, and other law enforcement agencies to call upon citizens during times of need.

LA riots after the Rodney King verdict are an example of people using firearms outside their home to defend their property and maintain order.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is doing nothing more than promoting an agenda while ignoring our basic human right to self-defense.

What would have happened if Andrew Jackson was prohibited from calling a militia to defend New Orleans? All the volunteers would have been arrested and their firearms confiscated.

Should the volunteers who went to Texas in 1835 and 1836 been arrested and their firearms confiscated?

 

[Good beer]

Here in Minnesota it is essentially the same except the bar is set very low,makes for a nice revenue stream. Not really a right but a 5 year contract. When the 5 year period has ended I must spend 85 for the renewal class and 100 to the county.

 

[Adam Robinson XV]

And here in Idaho, you don't even need a license to carry concealed at all. God bless this state!

 

[roseman]

As bad as it is here, we are still a 'shall' issue state.

 

[Woodswalker]

Also reflects the difference between "opinions" in red and blue states . The liberal judges in blue states who rule in favor of liberal agenda and ideology instead of what should be a right .

 

[Woodswalker]

As bad as it is here, we are still a 'shall' issue state.

Here in Minnesota it is essentially the same except the bar is set very low,makes for a nice revenue stream. Not really a right but a 5 year contract. When the 5 year period has ended I must spend 85 for the renewal class and 100 to the county.

Yup , it's not so much a right as it is a contract in most states .

As bad as MA is it's also a shall issue state - for now . But there are restrictions and hoops to jump through .

We are all pretty much 1 election away from having "opinions" and "contracts" changed .

 

[kev]

And here in Idaho, you don't even need a license to carry concealed at all. God bless this state!

That is how it should be.

Do we have to go through a background check and license to vote?

 

[Pitbull_Dallas]

Kev may correct me here, but in Texas you can carry concealed without a permit as long as you don't leave your property. And likewise, you can open carry.

Now, carrying concealed on you property may present a problem if an officer walks up, but only because he's there and can't see the weapon..

 

[Outlier]

We are waiting to see if the Supreme Court will grant cert. in Peruta v. California. They've rescheduled the conference several times. With any luck, they'll agree to review the case and we'll have a decision next year. I think it's likely that with Gorsuch now on the bench, if the court takes it up, that the California law will be struck down.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/

 

[Idaho Survivalist]

Carry outside a home

I live in an open carry state, but I do not approve. A motor vehicle is a deadly weapon and kills more than firearms in this country. I approve of people at least having to take a driver test before driving legally. We may miss a lot of illegal drivers this way but at least most drivers have both training and experience, especially if they attend high school. Now if we can somehow stop all this texting business, driving each day won't be like Russian Roulette.

Being able to carry a gun, especially concealed, doesn't mean that the posesser of the gun knows how to use it. If I am in a big-city Walmart and suddenly find myself where an active shooter has say an AK or AR, I will not start shooting. But if there are several untrained handgun owners who just begin shooting wildly, they could hit me or other innocent bystanders. And just carrying a gun doesn't mean that they could clear a jam. And most handgun owners don't carry a revolver. Most folks should take at least that training required in most CCW states.

So if you are in favor of all gun owners having the ability to legally carry a firearm with no training then you should want to abolish the high school driver-training programs and the driver license test and hope the driver coming at you learned to drive by osmosis!

 

[Outlier]

I live in an open carry state, but I do not approve. A motor vehicle is a deadly weapon and kills more than firearms in this country. I approve of people at least having to take a driver test before driving legally. We may miss a lot of illegal drivers this way but at least most drivers have both training and experience, especially if they attend high school. Now if we can somehow stop all this texting business, driving each day won't be like Russian Roulette.

Being able to carry a gun, especially concealed, doesn't mean that the posesser of the gun knows how to use it. If I am in a big-city Walmart and suddenly find myself where an active shooter has say an AK or AR, I will not start shooting. But if there are several untrained handgun owners who just begin shooting wildly, they could hit me or other innocent bystanders. And just carrying a gun doesn't mean that they could clear a jam. And most handgun owners don't carry a revolver. Most folks should take at least that training required in most CCW states.

So if you are in favor of all gun owners having the ability to legally carry a firearm with no training then you should want to abolish the high school driver-training programs and the driver license test and hope the driver coming at you learned to drive by osmosis!

Owning and possessing a firearm is a right whereas driving is a privilege, not a right.

Also, if Peruta v. California is taken up by the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit is overturned, that would mean that California would have to allow concealed carry but the requirements to obtain the concealed carry would be left up to the state, including the training requirements. Knowing that it's California, it'll likely be a lot of training requirements in order to get the concealed carry permit.

 

[Old Soldier]

I live in an open carry state, but I do not approve. A motor vehicle is a deadly weapon and kills more than firearms in this country. I approve of people at least having to take a driver test before driving legally. We may miss a lot of illegal drivers this way but at least most drivers have both training and experience, especially if they attend high school. Now if we can somehow stop all this texting business, driving each day won't be like Russian Roulette.

Being able to carry a gun, especially concealed, doesn't mean that the posesser of the gun knows how to use it. If I am in a big-city Walmart and suddenly find myself where an active shooter has say an AK or AR, I will not start shooting. But if there are several untrained handgun owners who just begin shooting wildly, they could hit me or other innocent bystanders. And just carrying a gun doesn't mean that they could clear a jam. And most handgun owners don't carry a revolver. Most folks should take at least that training required in most CCW states.

So if you are in favor of all gun owners having the ability to legally carry a firearm with no training then you should want to abolish the high school driver-training programs and the driver license test and hope the driver coming at you learned to drive by osmosis!

Zero parallel relevance. Driving on public roads is a regulated privilege, the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS is a God given RIGHT recognized in the Constitution.

 

[dmas]

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...o-confiscated-his-rifle-during-the-l-a-riots/

 

[roseman]

The 9th circuit's rulings have been overturned by the SCOUS many more times by far than any other circuit. It will happen in this case if the supreme court takes it on.

 

[JBryan314]

In interesting article in the LA times, that to me, reflects the difference in opinion about what our right to keep and bear arms means.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html


There was a reason why the founding fathers passed the Militia act of 1792,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792



The Militia act was later revised to establish the national guard.

By saying, “There is no 2nd Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the Ninth circuit has limited the ability of the county Sheriff, and other law enforcement agencies to call upon citizens during times of need.

LA riots after the Rodney King verdict are an example of people using firearms outside their home to defend their property and maintain order.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is doing nothing more than promoting an agenda while ignoring our basic human right to self-defense.

What would have happened if Andrew Jackson was prohibited from calling a militia to defend New Orleans? All the volunteers would have been arrested and their firearms confiscated.

Should the volunteers who went to Texas in 1835 and 1836 been arrested and their firearms confiscated?

**** the courts. **** all unethical, unjust laws. **** the elitist scum. We sent those ****s a stern warning when we elected an orange clown just because he wasn't like them. We told them the back off and we told them that we aren't having any more of their ****.

I don't care if the president, the governor and the sheriff tell me I can't carry outside my home. I'm going to do it anyway. I'm a free man and I encourage you all to be the same and act accordingly.

 

[Guntoteninfadel]

I live in an open carry state, but I do not approve. A motor vehicle is a deadly weapon and kills more than firearms in this country. I approve of people at least having to take a driver test before driving legally. We may miss a lot of illegal drivers this way but at least most drivers have both training and experience, especially if they attend high school. Now if we can somehow stop all this texting business, driving each day won't be like Russian Roulette.

Being able to carry a gun, especially concealed, doesn't mean that the posesser of the gun knows how to use it. If I am in a big-city Walmart and suddenly find myself where an active shooter has say an AK or AR, I will not start shooting. But if there are several untrained handgun owners who just begin shooting wildly, they could hit me or other innocent bystanders. And just carrying a gun doesn't mean that they could clear a jam. And most handgun owners don't carry a revolver. Most folks should take at least that training required in most CCW states.

So if you are in favor of all gun owners having the ability to legally carry a firearm with no training then you should want to abolish the high school driver-training programs and the driver license test and hope the driver coming at you learned to drive by osmosis!

I am for gun safety as a mandatory class in third fourth and fifth grades:thumb:

And what they said....... your comparing apples to orangutans....

 

[InOmaha]

When you cede the issue from right to legislation, they will legislate the right out of existence.

Can't have a gun outside your home, or buy ammunition without a license, or own this or that, or have a magazine, or transport a gun, or ...or...or...

 

[Good beer]

When you cede the issue from right to legislation, they will legislate the right out of existence.

Can't have a gun outside your home, or buy ammunition without a license, or own this or that, or have a magazine, or transport a gun, or ...or...or...

Exactly what I'm afraid of with this paid for 5 year contract,not a Constitutional arrangement at all.

 

[BJJ_Grappler]

Carrying a gun (vs brandishing a gun) shouldn't even be a debate. Every human has the right to do what they want until what they are doing is about to or is harming another.

Carrying a gun doesn't harm anyone.

 

[Ian Treloar]

Every human has the right to do what they want until what they are doing is about to or is harming another.

Yes. That's what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution, recognizing the sovereignty of the people as their starting point [as opposed to the sovereignty of the king]. A sovereign can do as he or she pleases, with a caveat of not infringing on the sovereignty of another. The government [federal, and state also once they signed on to be a part of the federation] is there to protect the sovereign rights of the individuals.

One can see, by comparing America as it is now to the above outline, just how far things have deteriorated from that promising beginning, not just over guns but also about everything else.

The rule by one sovereign is nothing more than a power grab, imposed on the rest of the people and supported by others who benefit from that system or have no idea they are slaves of the sovereign. The fathers tried to put a stop to that.

The number of those who understand the above principle of the constitution, compared to those who do not, is comparatively small. By and large, people just don't get it.

And so, getting to the point, any sort of granting of a liberty or permission or license by government, or a denial of a freedom by government [in this case, about guns], is not consistent with the intent of the constitution.

If the whole current structure of law had been dropped on the people all at once in, say, 1800, it would have immediately triggered an active revolt by the people against a tyrannical government. But because it has all been introduced bit by bit, people grumble but don't rise up.