• 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

I Ratant said:
.
Meeting them in Best Buy, armed...? Whuffo they packing?
Click to expand...

Why not? Do you know something about Best buy that I do not that prevents deadly force from being issued within the store? Why not indeed, Because you might freak out seems the only logical reason. Should plain cloths officers disarm to walk into best buy? Why? Should security people disarm to guard at best buy? Why?
If an armed security guard does not make you nervous, but a person dressed in plain cloths does, what do you think is intrinsically different about these two?

Hint: its not them, its you.

I guess you would think I was crazy for open carrying for two years in North Carolina. I went all over the place even with me going into best buy, food lion, the bank, YEP the BANK, and everywhere else legal to do so no one really cared. So maybe you are special?

A holstered pistol should not create controversy, those that carry in that way are not criminals (The FBI has data on how criminals carry weapons, universally they conceal, for what should be obvious reasons). Find me statistics for civilians who open carry and violence related to that? Nope, yea again, what is the problem here? My opinion is its you.
 
Last edited:
I have no difficulty with security guards at commercial establishments carrying.
Nor with the Brinks guys adding cash to the ATMs. I even offer to help them clean any spills!
These guys have a legitimate reason to carry openly.
Farmer Brown, Hunter Nimrod... leave the weapon in the truck.
It puts less stress on the legitimate security people when they do NOT see you carrying!
 
I Ratant said:
I have no difficulty with security guards at commercial establishments carrying.
Nor with the Brinks guys adding cash to the ATMs. I even offer to help them clean any spills!
These guys have a legitimate reason to carry openly.
Farmer Brown, Hunter Nimrod... leave the weapon in the truck.
It puts less stress on the legitimate security people when they do NOT see you carrying!
Click to expand...

Another person who believes self defense is not a legitimate reason to be armed, but has no problem with companies securing goods and money using them!
 
Bardy said:
...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...
Click to expand...

This is where we are headed. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry a gun.

I'm saying for two hundred and twenty-odd years it was not clear the Second Amendment granted to citizens the right to carry a gun. But that's where we're headed with the revisionist interpretations. This is from Peruta v. San Diego:

Peruta’s lead argument was that, by denying him the ability to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense, the County infringed his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The Ninth Circuit Court found:

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case.
Click to expand...

It's common sense that if this was the meaning of the Second Amendment all along, established by a series of case law, we wouldn't be seeing these cases now. The fact is this is NOT the way the courts have interpreted the SA. I think it's clear the meaning of the Second Amendment is being expanded by activist judges. The goal is clear:

That every American citizen has the right to own and carry a gun.
 
newyorkguy said:
This is where we are headed. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry a gun.

I'm saying for two hundred and twenty-odd years it was not clear the Second Amendment granted to citizens the right to carry a gun. But that's where we're headed with the revisionist interpretations. This is from Peruta v. San Diego:



The Ninth Circuit Court found:



It's common sense that if this was the meaning of the Second Amendment all along, established by a series of case law, we wouldn't be seeing these cases now. The fact is this is NOT the way the courts have interpreted the SA. I think it's clear the meaning of the Second Amendment is being expanded by activist judges. The goal is clear:

That every American citizen has the right to own and carry a gun.
Click to expand...

Funny how judges who someone disagrees with suddenly become "activist" on either side of the aisle.
 
Old man said:
Why - so it can be more easily stolen?
Click to expand...
.
Whyncha guys stroll past the Brinks guys when the ATM is being serviced, brandishing your weapon(s)?
Just imagine the fun and games that will ensue!
 
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...
That's not what they said at all. The 2nd Amendment conveys a right to bear arms, meaning to carry them. And since California made it illegal to open carry, they had to allow concealed carry since they do allow for that.

IOW you can outlaw open carry or concealed carry, but not both.
 
Mudcat said:
I would argue there is no legitimate reasons to conceal carry either, given all the other practical solutions one can use to protect themselves against whatever bogeymen that the gun nuts are raving about these days. Why must society pay for their stupid hobby?
Click to expand...
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?
 
newyorkguy said:
This is where we are headed. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry a gun.

I'm saying for two hundred and twenty-odd years it was not clear the Second Amendment granted to citizens the right to carry a gun. But that's where we're headed with the revisionist interpretations. This is from Peruta v. San Diego:



The Ninth Circuit Court found:



It's common sense that if this was the meaning of the Second Amendment all along, established by a series of case law, we wouldn't be seeing these cases now. The fact is this is NOT the way the courts have interpreted the SA. I think it's clear the meaning of the Second Amendment is being expanded by activist judges. The goal is clear:

That every American citizen has the right to own and carry a gun.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on the small snippet of the Ninth Circuit Court decision you posted? As far as I am aware, the meaning of the word 'bear' has been fairly stable over the centuries. A quick etymology search ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bear ) brings me this:

bear (v.) Look up bear at Dictionary.com
Old English beran "to bear, bring; bring forth, produce; to endure, sustain; to wear" (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, past participle boren), from Proto-Germanic *beranan (cf. Old Saxon beran, Old Frisian bera, Old High German beran, German gebären, Old Norse bera, Gothic bairan "to carry, bear, give birth to")

If the argument is about the original meaning of the word, it always seemed to include the component of 'carrying'. I would turn your argument on its head and say, if the authors of the amendment were keen to ensure that people not have the right to carry firearms but only to keep them at home, they probably would have used different language. Instead, they used a term which has universally and for long time included the act of physically carrying an object, rather than simply retaining it at a particular location.

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.

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 :)
 
newyorkguy said:
It's common sense that if this was the meaning of the Second Amendment all along, established by a series of case law, we wouldn't be seeing these cases now.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's the fact that the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated into the 14th Amendment until the McDonald decision 4 years ago.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Whyncha guys stroll past the Brinks guys when the ATM is being serviced, brandishing your weapon(s)?
Just imagine the fun and games that will ensue!
Click to expand...
Brandishing them or carrying them?
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm saying for two hundred and twenty-odd years it was not clear the Second Amendment granted to citizens the right to carry a gun.
Click to expand...

Before we examine the history, your claim here is ~220 years and not 20 years, right?


newyorkguy said:
It's common sense that if this was the meaning of the Second Amendment all along, established by a series of case law, we wouldn't be seeing these cases now.
Click to expand...

It may be fairly common, but I'm not certain about sensible. Does the existence of current 4th Amendment case law evidence the fact that the Constitution never really required searches to be based on probable cause or does it evidence that states sometimes fail to fully embrace those protections?
 
Mudcat said:
I would argue there is no legitimate reasons to conceal carry either, given all the other practical solutions one can use to protect themselves against whatever bogeymen that the gun nuts are raving about these days. Why must society pay for their stupid hobby?
Click to expand...

I have to ask, do you live in an area which has literally no crime/criminals and no incidences of violence? If you do, I can see why you have the viewpoint you do. If not, then your characterization of criminals as 'bogeymen', implying some non-existence on their part, is rather disingenuous. Shall we visit the families of people killed in muggings, women assaulted while going about their business and say to them in a sarcastic tone, "So, which bogeyman did this to you?"

If you do live in such a utopia, do you at least understand that very very many people out there do not, and the measures which apparently serve to keep you safe may not actually be sufficient for them? (Incidentally, following on from your other post, I do not view locking yourself in the house after sundown or only travelling in packs at all times as a 'practical solution' to crime. I view it as a 'submission' to crime.) ETA: If you do not live in a crime-free paradise, do you realize that the fact you yourself may not have been a victim of violent crime may not reflect some otherworldly intelligence on your part, but simply good fortune? I've lived in some awful areas in my life and i'm fully aware that the only reason i was personally never severely affected by a violent attack was that i just happened never to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I know people for whom the opposite is true.

You do recognize that the number of people who are victims of violent crime in the US every single day far outweighs the number who are killed in the very tragic mass shootings which get much playtime on the news, forming most of the wider public push for gun control before tailing off? Even in countries with strict gun control like the UK, the number of victims of violent crime in one year vastly exceeds the number of people killed in the much discussed mass shootings in the USA in one year, so it's not the guns themselves which are causing the crime. What is it about the victims of non-publicized, non media-highlighted violent crime that makes them unworthy of having the means to defend themselves, when the outcome for them can be just as severe as for the victims of mass shootings? Why are you so eager to defend the safety of those caught in one potentially fatal situation which is statistically highly unlikely, but so dismissive of people caught in the other potentially fatal situation, which is statistically far more likely?

If guns were outlawed tomorrow based purely on your desire, and people who would formerly have carried were forced to stop, and they were to become victims of violent crime which they otherwise could have prevented, would it be fair of us to say to you "Why should those people have paid for your stupid opinion?" If you think not, then you might want to revisit your last statement.

As an aside, it's the first time i've heard of having a reasonable concern for your physical wellbeing in the event of a crime being described as 'a stupid hobby'.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
Whyncha guys stroll past the Brinks guys when the ATM is being serviced, brandishing your weapon(s)?
Just imagine the fun and games that will ensue!
Click to expand...

Weirdly enough, I don't know what would make me more nervous if i were a guard. I mean, someone is walking towards me with a rifle on their back and a handgun on their hip. Surely they can't be planning to rob me, right? Not walking down the street with their weapons in plain view. It would be like holding up a sign that says "Be ready to shoot first and often, 'cos i'm comin' robbin'!" But maybe that's their plan, to lull me in to a false sense of security. Or maybe they're just nuts and don't give a damn. Regardless, I will watch this person closely.

On the other hand, this dude walking towards me with the jacket on. He might be armed, but he might not. If he is going to rob me, he could whip out a gun which he might have that I can't see at the moment! Of course, he may just be a dude hurrying to get that taco he's been looking forward to all day. I'll watch him closely, just in case!

In the end, the only thing I'm sure of is that I'm too paranoid be good security guard material ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom