Another Second Amendment win in California

[3point14]

Would one be allowed to openly carry a tazer? A blackjack? Mace? A sword, even, where one can openly carry a gun?

 

[tyr_13]

Would one be allowed to openly carry a tazer? A blackjack? Mace? A sword, even, where one can openly carry a gun?

I can't speak for everywhere, but in my county in New York half of those are illegal to own, two requires concealed carry except for security, and the sword can't be carried if it's longer than 28".

 

[I Ratant]

Open carry is prohibited here.
Anyone seen doing so can be considered deluded and dangerous, or criminal and dangerous.
Even semi-concealed gets a higher level of response, when the carrier makes the furtive move towards their waist band.
I wonder who can tell us the legal definition of furtive?
It's a common term, used around the courtroom a lot.

 

[casebro]

So hmmm... Maybe the 9th IS doing an end run?

Illegal to open carry, legal to carry concealed, but very contro;ll;ed?

 

[I Ratant]

Concealed and controlled sounds proper.

 

[newyorkguy]

...If we're going to judge strictly by the language, then as far as that second clause of the amendment goes i think we're actually heading towards the original intention of the law, which along the way was lost in arguments about what the intent of the authors was.

We're partially agreeing then. You call it "heading towards," I call it "expanding." Where we probably disagree is when you start talking about 'the original intent that was lost.' Where you appear to be claiming to know to a certainty the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The judges who for years thought the Second Amendment had to do with citizen militias made the same claim.

Or maybe it's the fact that the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated into the 14th Amendment until the McDonald decision 4 years ago.

Same thing. The Second Amendment wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment until the Scalia Court did so four years ago? I don't know what better evidence there is that the scope of the Second Amendment is being expanded. I also don't understand why all the pro-gun arguers are bothered by that statement. When it seems pretty self-evident.

As I said, if you could point me towards a more expanded version of your quote where the court explains what it found to be the original meaning, I'd find it most helpful

Need some help with your taxes too?

I already posted a link. Here it is again. Link When the page opens scroll down to the document entitled "Opinion" and dated "02/07/2014." That opens a 112-page pdf document with the Ninth Circuit's finding.

 

[BStrong]

Would one be allowed to openly carry a tazer? A blackjack? Mace? A sword, even, where one can openly carry a gun?

Except for pepper spray, Not in California - just about anything carried with the intent of using the object as a weapon - even a self defense weapon - is illegal w/o a specific license to carry (in the case of firearms) and no license exists for the rest of your list. It is legal to have some of those items in the home for defense (taser, sword -although using a sword for defense might raise a few questions in the media and the DA's office should such a thing occur)

 

[casebro]

Except for pepper spray, Not in California - just about anything carried with the intent of using the object as a weapon - even a self defense weapon - is illegal w/o a specific license to carry (in the case of firearms) and no license exists for the rest of your list. It is legal to have some of those items in the home for defense (taser, sword -although using a sword for defense might raise a few questions in the media and the DA's office should such a thing occur)

All of those arms ought to be covered by the 2A, which mentions 'arms', not specific to guns.

 

[I Ratant]

I've bought pepper spray at Sears. No questions asked.
As for newer weapons being covered by the 2ndA, that is obviously for the courts.

 

[Mudcat]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't:

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

In other words, the individual right to own firearms were treated as privilege not a right. That was the way the founders intended the amendment, because they had the wisdom to know that the average person were perhaps not suited to own such weapons.

Then there's no reason for the police, politicians, or the bodyguards of politicians to carry firearms either. When they give up theirs I'll give up mine, deal?

I have no problem with police, politicians, bodyguards, or military personel having firearms because they are trained in their use (and even then things happen, albeit at a lower rate than in the general public), how much does John Q Public have?

Because of the inherent dangers guns propose and the incredible responsibility they require gun ownership needs to be treated like a privilege, not a right.

 

[BStrong]

All of those arms ought to be covered by the 2A, which mentions 'arms', not specific to guns.

I can't disagree, but most California legislators have -0- interest in truth, historical or otherwise when it comes to "arms."

 

[BStrong]

We're partially agreeing then. You call it "heading towards," I call it "expanding." Where we probably disagree is when you start talking about 'the original intent that was lost.' Where you appear to be claiming to know to a certainty the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The judges who for years thought the Second Amendment had to do with citizen militias made the same claim.



Same thing. The Second Amendment wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment until the Scalia Court did so four years ago? I don't know what better evidence there is that the scope of the Second Amendment is being expanded. I also don't understand why all the pro-gun arguers are bothered by that statement. When it seems pretty self-evident.



Need some help with your taxes too?

I already posted a link. Here it is again. Link When the page opens scroll down to the document entitled "Opinion" and dated "02/07/2014." That opens a 112-page pdf document with the Ninth Circuit's finding.

I would call it application rather than scope. McDonald incorporated the Second through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[newyorkguy]

The Second Amendment wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment until the Scalia Court did so four years ago? I don't know what better evidence there is that the scope of the Second Amendment is being expanded. I also don't understand why all the pro-gun arguers are bothered by that statement. When it seems pretty self-evident.

I would call it application rather than scope. McDonald incorporated the Second through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Call it application then. But you're avoiding the point here. Whether it was incorporated or applied, isn't it evidence that the legal meaning of the Second Amendment, the essence of the Amendment, is changing? Changing in a way that clearly expands it?

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to "bear arms in lawful self-defense." That's a clear expansion of the legal meaning of the Second Amendment. No where in the Second Amendment do the words "lawful self-defense" appear.

 

[tyr_13]

Call it application then. But you're avoiding the point here. Whether it was incorporated or applied, isn't it evidence that the legal meaning of the Second Amendment, the essence of the Amendment, is changing? Changing in a way that clearly expands it?

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to "bear arms in lawful self-defense." That's a clear expansion of the legal meaning of the Second Amendment. No where in the Second Amendment do the words "lawful self-defense" appear.

No, just that now it's being applied and enforced. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before.

 

[WildCat]

No, it doesn't:

Yes, it does. Read the 9th Circuit's Peruta v. San Diego for pertinent historical proof. I notice you have cited nothing to evidence your claim, likely because nothing is all you have.

In other words, the individual right to own firearms were treated as privilege not a right. That was the way the founders intended the amendment, because they had the wisdom to know that the average person were perhaps not suited to own such weapons.

(citation needed)

I have no problem with police, politicians, bodyguards, or military personel having firearms because they are trained in their use (and even then things happen, albeit at a lower rate than in the general public), how much does John Q Public have?

I've shot with police officers before, some are good shots some are horrendous. Have you seen the NYC police in action?

At any rate, you claimed guns were unnecessary, therefore the police, politicians, and politicians bodyguards can all ditch their guns. Then I'll get rid of mine.

Because of the inherent dangers guns propose and the incredible responsibility they require gun ownership needs to be treated like a privilege, not a right.

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment, don't pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[WildCat]

Call it application then. But you're avoiding the point here. Whether it was incorporated or applied, isn't it evidence that the legal meaning of the Second Amendment, the essence of the Amendment, is changing? Changing in a way that clearly expands it?

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court in California ruled the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to "bear arms in lawful self-defense." That's a clear expansion of the legal meaning of the Second Amendment. No where in the Second Amendment do the words "lawful self-defense" appear.

Self defense was always a core meaning, going back to the writings of the framers.

Where does "abortion" appear in the Constitution btw? Do you think Roe v. Wade was the wrong verdict, or do you have double standards?

 

[casebro]

dunno about the NRA's history, but the first assault weapons law was overthrown by the SC back in the 1870s. It dealt with the lever action repeater. Finding then was that We The People have the right to keep and bear the same individual weapons used by soldiers.

It does not say "the right of militia men", it says "right of the people to...". 'People" everywhere else in the document means Me, and You.

 

[newyorkguy]

No where in the Second Amendment do the words "lawful self-defense" appear.

No, just that now it's being applied and enforced. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before.

The words "lawful self-defense" didn't exist in the Second Amendment before or now. The Ninth Circuit is referring to words that aren't in the Amendment. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying that when they cite the right to "lawful self-defense" in the Second Amendment they are expanding the legal definition of the Second Amendment.

Why are all the pro-gun advocates resisting this? That this is an expansion of an individual's rights under the Second Amendment? Is this gun lobby strategy? In a discussion DO NOT ADMIT that the recent court decisions have expanded or enlarged the scope of the Second Amendment? Why?

...Where does "abortion" appear in the Constitution btw? Do you think Roe v. Wade was the wrong verdict, or do you have double standards?

No the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution and I wouldn't pretend it did. The right to an abortion was hailed as a groundbreaking decision. That the right to privacy in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was extended to cover a woman's right to an abortion. It was a clear expansion of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same way a court suddenly finding the Second Amendment covers an individual's right to carry a gun for "lawful self-defense" is a clear expansion of the Second Amendment.

What it is about the word "expansion" that seems to bother you so much?

 

[Cylinder]

I'm saying that when they cite the right to "lawful self-defense" in the Second Amendment they are expanding the legal definition of the Second Amendment.

What you are saying is wrong. The right to possess weapons for the purpose of self defense existed in the common law long before the constitution was written.

 

[newyorkguy]

What you are saying is wrong. The right to possess weapons for the purpose of self defense existed in the common law long before the constitution was written.

In the Yolo County decision handed down Wednesday that I'm discussing the Ninth Court was not citing common law. They're citing the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

The difference is, common law is case law. Thus the Yolo County Board of Legislators is free to enact a different law, their own county law. They could enact a law banning guns in Yolo County if they wanted to. If the U.S. Constitution grants every American citizen the right to own and carry a gun than legislators can't defy it. See the difference?