Another Second Amendment win in California

[WildCat]

Repeating?

Look, I appreciate you feel that you're under attack, but simply dismissing anyone who makes enquiry or states an opinion contrary to your own as 'anti-gun' so you can disregard their opinions and thoughts as deeply biased really doesn't help. It is precisely the opposite of critical thinking.

Yes, repeating. It's become popular in recent years for the anti-gunners to claim that the NRA is a lobbying group funded by firearms manufacturers. Did you critically investigate that claim before repeating it here?

 

[3point14]

First clause is a collective right, 2nd clause is an individual right. It's really not poorly written until you try to do the mental gymnastics necessary to define "the people" as something other than "the people".

That' s deeply twisty thinking based on your own biases.

If it's so simple, why so much controversy?

If it's so simple, why so much scholarly work on it?

If it's so simple, why have so many SCOTUS rulings ad to be made?

 

[3point14]

Yes, repeating. It's become popular in recent years for the anti-gunners to claim that the NRA is a lobbying group funded by firearms manufacturers. Did you critically investigate that claim before repeating it here?

No, hence my confession that it was only a thought and my thanks to you for the accurate information you so kindly supplied.

But if you're going to go on about it to me, can you just show me where I have repeatedly made (caution, deeply loaded term ahead) 'anti gun' statements?

Either do that, or stop levelling accusations at me that you can't back up.

Thanks.

 

[newyorkguy]

No, hence my confession that it was only a thought and my thanks to you for the accurate information you so kindly supplied.

The only information that was presented was in the link to the Bloomberg news article. Did you read it? I did and I didn't think it supported what was implied. This is from Business Insider:

....today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues. The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

 

[tyr_13]

It is, at least, a change though?

For these counties? Yes.

Localities have restricted who may carry a gun in their jurisdiction for two centuries. That was firmly established by case law and upheld for decades by courts. Now that's changing. These court decisions are saying the right to carry a gun is absolute. That cities and states do not have the right to restrict it. The idea is, as the Ninth Circuit has decided, the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans the right to carry a gun. To carry. Free of any government interference. If that isn't a fundamental change I don't know what would be.

Well you're simply wrong and the highlighted part shows where you're going off the track. That is not what the courts ruled. No wonder you think it's an expansion! They said that you can't deny based on a few criteria but that you can on others.

So they got away with it for two centuries? Really? First off, I think you're rolling in any carry restrictions with the 'denied because defense isn't a valid reason', which isn't right to do. That's valid if you think all the restrictions are being overturned. But they're not, so it's not. Secondly, you keep saying 'case law' but what is the case law? What is the precedent? Was this specific type of restriction ever actually challenged to the circuit court, and did they actually rule on defense not being a valid reason? Did they rule that the right to bear arms didn't actually include bearing arms? How does this line up with other rulings? Wildcat has cited actual case law, you have not. All you've done is argue that because these restrictions were done for so long that case law must be in it's favor on this detail. Are you assuming this, or do you actually have something?

I understand the gun lobby tacticians want to keep a low profile. I think they're trying to get this change through under the radar. Even states like Florida still require a permit for concealed carry. Under this new interpretation -- if it's upheld -- Florida might not be able to do that. Citizens don't need permits to exercise a right guaranteed them under the Constitution.

Only it's not clear that these decisions will withstand the challenges that are already being planned. Thus the word goes out: Don't celebrate just yet.

Calm down. Stop thinking about 'gotcha' questions and the political games of the evil gun lobby. Take this step by step though the critical thinking process and try to find evidence to support or invalidate your hypothesis.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Well you're simply wrong and the highlighted part shows where you're going off the track. That is not what the courts ruled. No wonder you think it's an expansion! They said that you can't deny based on a few criteria but that you can on others...

I hope you're right. That's not the way I read these court decisions. I'll guess we'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

 

[welshdean]

Some California counties have really got themselves in a jackpot wrt concealed carry license issuance post Heller and McDonald, for a couple of reasons.

First up, in a survey of successful applicants (through California's public record disclosure law) in certain counties were Self Defense was stipulated in the counties written policy as not constituting good cause for license issuance, some applicants that were issued carry licenses used that exact good cause in their applications. In cross checking names with donor lists for the sheriff in question campaign disclosures (Sheriffs are elected officials, not appointed as Chiefs of police are) there is usually overlap...

The other problem is that in both SC decisions, Self Defense was specifically cited as being the intrinsic part of the right to keep and bear arms - not hunting or militia membership or skeet shooting.





Because California law makers have pretty much had a free hand to abridge the right of firearms possession at will w/o consequences, the two recent 9th circuit decisions, along with the failure of Alameda county to stop gun shows at the county fair property, and even Harrot v. King in '96:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/harrott_v_kings.txt

Have thrown state legislators a fastball they're not accustomed to facing, and they're not liking it much and have already stuck their figurative foot in their mouth in a couple of cases being litigated right now - stay tuned for future developments and disappointed politicians.

Deleted

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm 67 and I've carried a gun for 40 years in my car or when I go hiking. I only had to shoot one rabid raccoon during the whole time. I'm glad I had the gun because in those days the rabis vaccination was made from horses of which I'm very allergic.

 

[3point14]

The only information that was presented was in the link to the Bloomberg news article. Did you read it? I did and I didn't think it supported what was implied. This is from Business Insider:

Possibly, but I really am trying to have a dialogue so I'm not going to do any more poking than is really necessary. I'd just like to get past the bit where I'm labelled as anti gun (on the solitary basis that I'm not pro gun, I suspect) which is the point at which the fingers go in the ears and the la-ing starts.

I'm really not pro or anti anything, I have no dog in this fight, you guys all want to walk around with AK47s hanging off your shoulders then it realy is no skin off my nose at all.

I just find it fascinating because I really don't think there's any equivalent debate happening anywhere else in the western world at all. It is, as far as I can tell, only an issue in the US, which makes it more fascinationg, however, some of the people whose opinions I'd like to explore are very, erm, spikey.

Others are charming, educated and informed, Mr R Biker and one or two others.

 

[Mudcat]

They are subject to stringent controls and restrictions. Few things have as many as firearms do.

Any one with a valid identification, age eighteen or older, can get a firearm.

Background checks are only required for handguns.

Licenses and training are only required for concealed carry, and sometimes not even then.

You are not required to register your weapons or insure them...

I'm sorry but there must be some definition for 'stringent' with which I'm not aware.

 

[BStrong]

As far as determining what the Second Amendment right was intended to recognize, the text of the various state's Constitutions Second Amendment sections ratified contemporaneously can be reviewed for context.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm

Pennsylvania:

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[8]

Vermont:

Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.[15] It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."[16]

North Carolina:

Like Pennsylvania, North Carolina adopted an arms right in 1776.[18] The North Carolina Bill of Rights reads in part, "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[19]

We can also refer to Dred Scott v. Sandford,1856:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC12

" It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Pretty clear to me that self defense was the intended right recognized by the Second. Since SCOTUS has ruled on that point in the affirmative in two separate cases, this isn't just hot air or propaganda.

 

[I Ratant]

...

*tongue in cheek. This debate is going absolutely nowhere, which is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating.

.
These always end poorly... but train wrecks are interesting to observe, and it doesn't hurt to throw some fuel into one.
There's a chance for reality, isn't there?

 

[Cylinder]

Any one with a valid identification, age eighteen or older, can get a firearm.

No. For instance, felons cannot purchase firearms. A person adjudicated insane cannot purchase a firearm. A person adjudicated guilty of an offense of domestic violence cannot buy a firearm. Even though I don't fall into any of those categories, I cannot buy a firearm on the behest of any other person.

Background checks are only required for handguns.

No. Background checks are required on all firearm sales from any firearm dealer by federal law - including long guns. Private sales by non-dealers do not require background checks but do require that sales are not made knowingly to any of the prohibited categories.

Licenses and training are only required for concealed carry, and sometimes not even then.

That varies by state. For instance, Massachusetts requires a Firearms Identification Card (FID) to purchase even long guns. To get the FID you have to complete an education requirement.

You are not required to register your weapons or insure them...

Again, varies by state. For instance, California requires new firearms to be registered.

 

[BStrong]

Any one with a valid identification, age eighteen or older, can get a firearm.

Background checks are only required for handguns.

Licenses and training are only required for concealed carry, and sometimes not even then.

You are not required to register your weapons or insure them...

I'm sorry but there must be some definition for 'stringent' with which I'm not aware.

Depends on locality.

In California the purchaser must have a firearms safety certificate (applicant successfully passes a written test) before purchasing any firearm, all firearms are registered at point of sale, there is a background check, a ten day waiting period, and the purchaser must pass a "safe-handling" test at point of sale before taking possession of the firearm in question - the selection of handguns is restricted by what the state calls the "Safe Gun Roster" that manufacturers must submit examples for testing to and pay a fee to remain on said list, and the list has -0- to do with "safety" it's simply intended to restrict availablity.

Oh yeah, LEO's are exempt from the list, but why in the world would the state want LEO's to buy handguns that aren't "safe?"

 

[I Ratant]

It's deeply cultural with, I suspect, an awful lot of revisionism just for good measure.


The bottom line is that the second amendment is an utterly, utterly lousy piece of legislation and it's screwed all of you, it's screwed those who want guns by not being precise enough and screwed those who don't for exactly the same reason.

The irony is, you just can't change it. I mean, the founding fathers realised that their document may need amending and added provisions for just that, but that is now impossible (oh the irony, amending an amendment isn't possible) partly because you guys could never agree on a revised wording, and partly because, despite the best intentions of the writers of the document, many US citizens believe that it should never, ever be amended.

.
It has been... amended and deamended. But the national interest has to be there for either.
There is a need for guns. If only because there's so many of them here totally unregulated and available to those seeking harmful use.
Culling those by self-defense takes time.

 

[Mudcat]

Pretty clear to me that self defense was the intended right recognized by the Second.

You make a good case, but still ignore the cost to the United States that this particular 'right' brings with it. In any case guns aren't the only way one can defend themselves, nor are they best way to do so.

 

[BStrong]

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.

In Heller, the court ruled that self-defense was the core right of the Amendment - not hunting, militia service or recreational shooting.

State or local laws that infringe on that right will need to be litigated as separate issues as the McDonald ruling incorporated the Second onto the states via the due process clause.

It's not expanding a right, it's striking down laws infringing on a right that exists even outside the Constitution and the BoR, see US v. Cruickshank:

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

 

[Mudcat]

No. For instance, felons cannot purchase firearms. A person adjudicated insane cannot purchase a firearm.

I cover that under background checks.

Even though I don't fall into any of those categories, I cannot buy a firearm on the behest of any other person.

Neither can you buy alcohol for minors. But realistically speaking, what stops people from doing either? The only way you would get caught is if the other person is caught in the commission of a crime.

Private sales by non-dealers do not require background checks but do require that sales are not made knowingly to any of the prohibited categories.

And those that are normally prohibited from buying guns legally are likely to identify themselves I take it?

That varies by state.

It really shouldn't.

 

[BStrong]

You make a good case, but still ignore the cost to the United States that this particular 'right' brings with it. In any case guns aren't the only way one can defend themselves, nor are they best way to do so.

If you're talking about defense tactics that don't require an immediate stop to the threat, there are techniques, tactics and tools that one can use (if they're training and experience is up to it) to slow or defuse the threat, but in immediate stop situations the firearm is the tool of choice.

 

[Cylinder]

Possibly, but I really am trying to have a dialogue so I'm not going to do any more poking than is really necessary. I'd just like to get past the bit where I'm labelled as anti gun (on the solitary basis that I'm not pro gun, I suspect) which is the point at which the fingers go in the ears and the la-ing starts.

I think that's a valid complaint. I think the outsider has to also be aware (as you rightly point out) that it's an issue that ignites passion among Americans and that the issue is foreign (in both senses of meaning) to many outsiders.

It would be somewhat analogous, for instance, if I argued against the NHS - that UK residents do not have any right to government-funded health care. I'd have to do quite a bit of research and assimilate some cultural knowledge to assert that claim critically. The parts of my argument that aren't approached from the perspective of critical thought might be inflammatory to residents within the UK.

That's not to say you should not participate in the discussion or that your opinion is any less valid - just that maybe an outsider can (and I have no evidence that you've ever done this so it's a posit - not an accusation) present an argument that kind of identifies with a some other belief or presupposes that belief without understanding it.