RandyP Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:25 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:25 PM That's what this Judge in California just ruled. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/ Can you say "Legislate from the Bench?".... I knew you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:37 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:37 PM Federal Judges have a tendency to legislate from the bench. If you ask me, half of them do not know the law as it is written. They judge the case from their thoughts and ideas and that is why we have so many screwballs messing with the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:41 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:41 PM I have to partially agree with this judge. The constitution says nothing about carrying concealed. I do however disagree with his open cary theory since They can only open carry unloaded which is nothing more than a tranportation, now if they were able to open carry loaded, then I would agree with this judge because it has been upheld many times that as long as one option was available unrestricted the other could be restricted as the state seen fit. They should carry hammers around in gun holsters as a protest to the open carry unloaded part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:51 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 02:51 PM Then there's this example from TMZ of police in Malibu acting under a great amount of gracious control - lol Rick Springfield was arrested in Malibu on May 1 and blew a .10 -- above the legal limit. Sources tell us ... Springfield was extremely angry after the deputy said his $200,000, 1963 Corvette Stingray would be towed away. Law enforcement sources tell us, Springfield yelled to the deputy, "If you tow my car I will ing kill you and your family." Law enforcement sources tell us ... back at the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff's Station, the captain who runs the station asked the deputy, "Did you really feel threatened?" Our sources say some of the deputies at the station felt it was a loaded question, trying to minimize Springfield's statement. In the end, our sources say there was no mention of the threat in the arrest report -- the report merely says Springfield was "belligerent." You may recall, the Malibu/Lost Hills Sheriff's Station is the place where the Mel Gibson 2006 DUI arrestreport was rewritten to exclude Mel's anti-Semitic rant. As for Springfield, his rep gave TMZ this statement: "Someone has leaked information illegally. It's a sad reflection on society today that people in law enforcement who we look up to, pander to the celebrity gossip channels." LA County Sheriff's Dept. spokesman Steve Whitmore tells TMZ, "It is rare when a drunk doesn't say something outlandish to police when they're arrested. I have no idea what went down with this one, I wasn't there, but drunks are notorious for saying stupid, outlandish things to law enforcement all the time. Law enforcement's job is to get them off the streets, because they're drunk." </span>The D.A. currently has the file and is deciding whether to charge Springfield with DUI. Imagine if Rick were in Philadelphia? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted May 17, 2011 at 03:51 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 03:51 PM I have to partially agree with this judge. The constitution says nothing about carrying concealed. I do however disagree with his open cary theory since They can only open carry unloaded which is nothing more than a tranportation, now if they were able to open carry loaded, then I would agree with this judge because it has been upheld many times that as long as one option was available unrestricted the other could be restricted as the state seen fit. They should carry hammers around in gun holsters as a protest to the open carry unloaded part. Uh hello, you're right it does not say anything about concealed. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They were not specific about how to carry because it doesn't matter how you carr in the framers eyes. Carry is carry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:13 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:13 PM I have to partially agree with this judge. The constitution says nothing about carrying concealed. I do however disagree with his open cary theory since They can only open carry unloaded which is nothing more than a tranportation, now if they were able to open carry loaded, then I would agree with this judge because it has been upheld many times that as long as one option was available unrestricted the other could be restricted as the state seen fit. They should carry hammers around in gun holsters as a protest to the open carry unloaded part. Uh hello, you're right it does not say anything about concealed. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They were not specific about how to carry because it doesn't matter how you carr in the framers eyes. Carry is carry Indeed. It does not say where you can keep, or how you can bear; just that you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:47 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:47 PM This will be interesting to watch this play out. Judge: No right to carry concealed. CA assembly: No open carry. This creates the same situation as us in Illinois if CA does pass the open carry ban. It is also interesting to note the the Judge rules the Second Amendment does not grant a fundamental right to carry concealed. The judge is correct, the 2A does not create anything, it only states the US will recognize and not infringe upon it. There could be a bunch of federal trial and appelate decisions coming in the next year but I believe the Maryland carry case to SCOTUS will be the one with the most trickle down impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:50 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:50 PM Keep in mind this is from the most overturned Circuit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:55 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 05:55 PM As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:10 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:10 PM As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helpsWith all the cross-posting, it's hard to follow, but what exactly is the positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:14 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:14 PM As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helpsWith all the cross-posting, it's hard to follow, but what exactly is the positive? My guess is circuit split. SCOTUS is more likely to take a case if two or more of the circuit courts disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM Don't blame me - lol - my posting was earlier this morning, three hours before the second one by someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ming Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:16 PM Share Posted May 17, 2011 at 07:16 PM As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helpsWith all the cross-posting, it's hard to follow, but what exactly is the positive? Judge England stated that since Ca. allows open carry of an unloaded weapon, citizens did have the ability to protect themselves. However, the Ca. legislature just voted to make open carry on an unloaded weapon illegal. Somethings going to have to give here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.