That's what this Judge in California just ruled.
http://www.foxnews.c...-gun-advocates/
Can you say "Legislate from the Bench?".... I knew you could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
There is NO Constitutional Right to Carry?
Started by
RandyP
, May 17 2011 08:25 AM
12 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 1,214 posts Joined: 03-May 07
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:37 AM
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.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. " Noah Webster
The founding fathers of this nation were very clear about the meaning of the second amendment and the Supreme Court has backed them up.-----Repeatedly.
The fiercest criminal the the citizen has to fear is a Government that becomes over-bearing.
Any right not exercised is a forgotten right.
The founding fathers of this nation were very clear about the meaning of the second amendment and the Supreme Court has backed them up.-----Repeatedly.
The fiercest criminal the the citizen has to fear is a Government that becomes over-bearing.
Any right not exercised is a forgotten right.
#3
-
- Members
-
- 3,008 posts Joined: 08-March 11
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:41 AM
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.
They should carry hammers around in gun holsters as a protest to the open carry unloaded part.
#4
-
- Members
-
- 5,717 posts Joined: 16-March 07
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:51 AM
Then there's this example from TMZ of police in Malibu acting under a great amount of gracious control - lol
Imagine if Rick were in Philadelphia? LOL
Quote
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 f**king 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.
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 f**king 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
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. - Andrew Fletcher 1698
#5
-
- Members
-
- 7,046 posts Joined: 15-February 08
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:51 AM
Uncle Harley, on 17 May 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
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
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-
Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-
-Thomas Jefferson-
Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-
#6
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 1,207 posts Joined: 02-July 10
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:13 AM
Drylok, on 17 May 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:
Uncle Harley, on 17 May 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:
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.
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.
NRA / ISRA
#7
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 4,094 posts Joined: 07-July 06
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:47 AM
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.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF
#8
-
- Moderator
-
- 8,008 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:50 AM
Keep in mind this is from the most overturned Circuit...
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#9
-
- Members
-
- 4,239 posts Joined: 29-March 09
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:55 AM
As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helps
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
#10
-
- Members
-
- 493 posts Joined: 28-April 11
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:10 PM
Tvandermyde, on 17 May 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:
As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helps
#11
-
- Moderator
-
- 8,008 posts Joined: 03-January 07
David Lawson
Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:14 PM
mrmagloo, on 17 May 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:
Tvandermyde, on 17 May 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:
As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helps
My guess is circuit split. SCOTUS is more likely to take a case if two or more of the circuit courts disagree.
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
#12
-
- Members
-
- 1,722 posts Joined: 29-November 07
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:15 PM
Don't blame me - lol - my posting was earlier this morning, three hours before the second one by someone else.
#13
-
- Supporting Members Team
-
- 686 posts Joined: 22-July 09
Member
Posted 17 May 2011 - 01:16 PM
mrmagloo, on 17 May 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:
Tvandermyde, on 17 May 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:
As posted in another thread, the ruling actually helps
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.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
