• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Second Amendment win in California

TheRedWorm said:
I'm honestly not seeing many other reasons besides self defense for a concealed carry. At least, that's the reason I'd carry...
Click to expand...

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.
 
An FFL I know couldn't get one with "self defense" on the form. But he got one approved when he put in that it was needed to protect his cash when leaving the gun shows with full pockets.

Protecting property vs protecting people?

Or has it always been a from of graft?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
An FFL I know couldn't get one with "self defense" on the form. But he got one approved when he put in that it was needed to protect his cash when leaving the gun shows with full pockets.

Protecting property vs protecting people?

Or has it always been a from of graft?
Click to expand...

Its called arbitrary and capricious.
 
BStrong said:
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...
Click to expand...

Curious.
 
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
 
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning". If you decide that concealed carry is untraditional, then that means open carry is traditional and that therefore, people in Cali have the constitutional right to open carry loaded firearms.
 
The Norseman said:
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning"...
Click to expand...

A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.

Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
 
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

If you read the 9th decision from the San Diego case, they also cited the fact that in the state of California, the open (not concealed) carry of an unloaded firearm is a crime under state law - that law was enacted last year after a series of protests where firearms owners met in public places with holstered unloaded handguns in plain view.

The Black Panthers set in motion the state to ban the open carry of loaded firearms when they protested at the state capitol, armed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...lcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951

Reagan couldn't sign the loaded carry ban fast enough. Can't have uppity armed blacks running around loose.
 
newyorkguy said:
A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.

Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
Click to expand...

I believe they can and should, within reason.

The problem in California has been that in many areas if you're not white, well off and contribute to the campaign chest of local politicians your chance of getting a carry permit in any of the major metros is -0-, no matter your real world need.

Background checks, pictures and prints, classroom instruction, range instruction, qualifying on the live fire range with annual or semi-annual requals all make sense and should be policy, but million dollar liability polices and "average police response time" justifications are silly and unconstitutional.

It should be noted also that 42 of the 50 states have gone "shall-issue" for carry permits, and the 8 states that haven't are the outliers, not the reverse.
 
BStrong said:
...The Black Panthers set in motion the state to ban the open carry of loaded firearms when they protested at the state capitol, armed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...lcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951

Reagan couldn't sign the loaded carry ban fast enough. Can't have uppity armed blacks running around loose.
Click to expand...

Come on. Uppity blacks? The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary group advocating the armed overthrow of the United States government. They also advocated killing white police officers in black communities as they were "agents of oppression," sent there by the racist state to keep black people down.

Remember, Off the pigs!
 
BStrong said:
Background checks, pictures and prints, classroom instruction, range instruction, qualifying on the live fire range with annual or semi-annual requals all make sense and should be policy ...
Click to expand...

I'm completely on board with wanting anyone who is carrying a gun to have been taught how to safely handle that firearm, mainly because i don't want to accidentally get shot. Background checks - great. Pictures and prints - I have to think about that a little more. Though not a hardcore libertarian I feel unease about innocent people being fingerprinted and this being kept on record. Pictures I don't have such an issue with. You need one to get a drivers license, so why not to carry a gun concealed?

Where i have more of an issue is with mandatory classroom instruction and range qualification. These things are costly. This cost is naturally borne by the person wanting to carry a gun, right? That means that, with taxes and fees and licensing and who knows what else, the government at whatever level has a way to place de facto gun control on poorer communities by simply pricing them out of the opportunity of qualifying for a permit.

The irony of this is, it is those people living or working in poorer, higher crime areas that are more likely to need a concealed weapon for self defense. I can't see this as being in any way fair or reasonable.

It's a sticky issue. The first thing I did when I decided I was going to be handling a gun in any way was book instruction with a qualified teacher to make sure i didn't accidentally shoot myself, someone i care about, or any random stranger. However, I was fortunate in being in a financial position to do that, whereas many people simply are not. Should we be willing to accept disqualifying people from being able to defend themselves based on their income?
 
The Norseman said:
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning". If you decide that concealed carry is untraditional, then that means open carry is traditional and that therefore, people in Cali have the constitutional right to open carry loaded firearms.
Click to expand...
.
Only the Men In Black could carry a Kentucky Long Rifle concealed in their form fitted uniforms!
 
"...defend themselves based on their income? "
.
It really comes down to that. The obviously needed courses in firearm safety and when it is legitimate to use one cost the taxpayer.
Most taxpayers have zero interest in a firearm, much less toting one around on the odd chance it might be used, and would not find financing courses a legitimate use of their taxes.
Possibly schools, which pay the state for the privilege, can teach the needs to the applicant.
 
newyorkguy said:
A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. As others have pointed out, it's places like California and New York who require concealed carry permits in order to bare arms. If they allowed open carry, then they likely could make more onerous requirements for concealed carry. But because they make it illegal to open carry they can't restrict concealed carry any more than is proper.

So it's not an expansion at all, it's preventing an end around of established law.

EDIT: To clarify what I 'fixed' was the actual implication of what aspect of the 2nd Amendment was being violated. That sentence is still factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

You could easily argue that it's an expansion of the intent of the second amendment, if that's your bag. I don't know how successful this would be but it is legitimate to question what the authors had in mind when they wrote the text. They probably didn't have in mind a firearm with a barrel of less than 5" and an ammo capacity of 17 rounds, for example.

However, I don't think you could fairly say that it's a clear expansion of the meaning of the second amendment, if by 'meaning' we are actually referring to the message carried by the words themselves. It's pretty clear cut that the second amendment allows people to bear arms. Carrying a concealed weapon is clearly caught under the definition of 'bearing' a firearm.

Rather than saying that concealed carry falls outside of the second amendment, which is a dead-end to any dialog because it simply does not, the discussion should rather be about what limits can / should be legally placed on concealed carry.
 
newyorkguy said:
Come on. Uppity blacks? The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary group advocating the armed overthrow of the United States government. They also advocated killing white police officers in black communities as they were "agents of oppression," sent there by the racist state to keep black people down.

Remember, Off the pigs!
Click to expand...

I remember it very well, much more so than you might realize.

The local environment at the time this went down was chock full of nuts from every side of the political spectrum, from Minutemen and the Klan (yeah, the Klan was in California) to every type of leftist from Trotsky to Stalin to Mao, Anarchists, and just plain pissed off people.

Without overstating it, and I'm absolutely no fan of any armed nut, in certain communities at the time, LEO's were much more prone to use force, up to lethal.

Some of the causation in both Oakland and S.F. that brought about the Panthers was the fact that if you were a young black guy, it didn't take much in either city for you to end up in the tank with a busted head and a felony charge (not just blacks either. there was a local case involving the HA's where the DA charged a member for breaking the leg of a LEO - cop claimed he witnessed the angel do it with a coke bottle...tv news footage of the incident showed the angel in question being clubbed on the head by an OPD officer, and when the 6' 8", 300 or so pound angel fell on the other officer, that's how the officers leg ended up being broken.)

It had been the law prior to the Panthers' day trip to the capitol that unless otherwise restricted by local ordinance, an individual could openly carry a loaded handgun on their person - not in SF or LA, but in many other places people could and did - leading to shock on the part of Los Angelenos or SF residents that went up the gold country, but it was legal.

What the Panthers pulled in Sac, was street theater of the highest order, and it did exactly what it intended, which was garner publicity.

They eventually devolved into a flat-out criminal operation, that's an absolute truth, but they were also on the receiving end of massive local, state and federal scrutiny, not all of it Constitutional or legal, and the fact that they were black, outspoken and armed made them an enemy of the public order even if their only public act would have been the free food program for the community that was one of their earliest programs.

Contrast what the history was of the Panthers v what the history was of other armed subversive groups of the era, and especially look at the reaction of the FBI was to the various players - the FBI had eyes and ears in the Klan and didn't do much of anything when the Klan killed blacks or white civil rights volunteers, even to the point that they had CI's in the actually criminal acts.

As to the Panthers, they had CI's that initiated criminal activity, that resulted in either the local agency or the feds going in w/ blazing guns.

I'm not making any excuses for the scumbags, but it's important to note the differences between the enforcement actions against white organized subversive scumbags and black organized subversive scumbags.
 
I Ratant said:
"...defend themselves based on their income? "
.
It really comes down to that. The obviously needed courses in firearm safety and when it is legitimate to use one cost the taxpayer.
Most taxpayers have zero interest in a firearm, much less toting one around on the odd chance it might be used, and would not find financing courses a legitimate use of their taxes.
Possibly schools, which pay the state for the privilege, can teach the needs to the applicant.
Click to expand...

Yep, publicly funded firearm instruction probably is a low priority for most people, at least until we've sorted out our publicly funded reading/writing/math/physics/everythingelse instruction!

A theory test would be lots cheaper and there are many online ways of administering this at virtually no cost, but it has all the pitfalls of not verifying the identify of the person taking the test and the lack of actually handling a gun. Perhaps online learning materials and a low-cost written test performed at some public venue or something similar?

The big problem here is that reading about gun safety doesn't actually mean you're capable of practicing it when you have a gun in your hands, so there is a real need for a practical element. This is the costly part.

I sometimes wonder if the county or state police shouldn't offer rock-bottom priced (or even free) firearm instruction to those who want the concealed carry permit. After all, it's the cops who end up spending time and money investigating and clearing up the mess after something goes wrong. You'd think they had a vested interest in ensuring that everyone who wants to carry a gun got all the instruction they could ever want or need to make sure they weren't blowing holes in things unnecessarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom