CA CCW lawsuit initial victory

[press1280]

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36583.html

Guy is a part time resident of San Diego, was denied a CCW because of non-resident status as well as "good cause". San Diego sheriffs' office tried to get the case tossed, and were denied. The judge noted Heller and the fact SDSO didn't even try to defend why San Diego's(and CA for that matter) policy was necessary or reasonable.

[MichaelJ]

I'm happy to see at the very least, a discussion is being forced. It's a States Right issue through and through, allowing petty dictators to set up their own fifedoms to control the populations rights needs to be ended.

[LittleRedToyota]

It's a States Right issue through and through,

i disagee. the 2nd amendment says what it says, and the 14th amendment makes it applicable to the states. the right to keep and bear arms is no more of a states' rights issue than is the right to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

personally, i think SCOTUS will hole that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th. however, i think they will also hold that "reasonable" restrictions somehow to not infringe...and that just about any restriction you can think of that applies outside the home will be "reasonable".

[knight0334]

i disagee. the 2nd amendment says what it says, and the 14th amendment makes it applicable to the states. the right to keep and bear arms is no more of a states' rights issue than is the right to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

personally, i think SCOTUS will hole that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th. however, i think they will also hold that "reasonable" restrictions somehow to not infringe...and that just about any restriction you can think of that applies outside the home will be "reasonable".

I think incorporating under the 14th Amendment is as much of an abomination as denying the 2A.

The right to keep and bear arms was strictly reserved to the People. And as the Creators of the Constitution, and naming and designating 3 entities "the Government, the States, and the People", we strictly reserve said right to ourselves far and above encroachment from any other form of government.

The 2nd Amendment should be found to be self-incorporated, not incorporated via another amendment.

[ByAnyMeans]

I think incorporating under the 14th Amendment is as much of an abomination as denying the 2A.

The right to keep and bear arms was strictly reserved to the People. And as the Creators of the Constitution, and naming and designating 3 entities "the Government, the States, and the People", we strictly reserve said right to ourselves far and above encroachment from any other form of government.

The 2nd Amendment should be found to be self-incorporated, not incorporated via another amendment.

While I agree that it should not require another ammendment to be incorporated, I thought all the ammendments were incorporated through the 14th. Correct me if wrong, I try to study this but am no scholar.

[LittleRedToyota]

While I agree that it should not require another ammendment to be incorporated, I thought all the ammendments were incorporated through the 14th. Correct me if wrong, I try to study this but am no scholar.

not all amendments--that would be "total incorporation", but SCOTUS has opted to follow a paradigm of "selective incorporation".

in the beginning, there were 10 amendments (the bill of rights)...all of which, like the rest of the constitution, applied only to the federal government.

then along came the 14th amendment--which explicitly applied to all levels government.

then the courts started to rule that various other amendments should be "incorporated" into the 14th and, thus, held to apply to state and local governments as well as the federal government.

however, the courts never held that the 14th automatically incorporated all of the BOR (opting, instead, to follow the concept of "selective incorporation"). much of the BOR has been thus "incorporated" and held to apply to state and local governments, but not all of it.

until heller, the courts (at least supposedly) had never held that the 2nd protected a fundamental individual right to keep and/or bear arms. because of this, the 2nd was also never incorporated. however, now that SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is a fundamental individual right, it is hard to imagine how it should not incorporated--as it would be extremely logically inconsistent to say the 14th incorporates the 1st, but not the 2nd. cold, rational logic just doesn't allow for any distinction between the fundamental individual right to free speech and the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. both are fundamental individual rights explicitly protected by the BOR, so treating them differently with regard to incorporation would be logically inconsistent to be nice about it.

SCOTUS will likely be ruling on that in an upcoming case.

for more on incorporation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

[press1280]

i disagee. the 2nd amendment says what it says, and the 14th amendment makes it applicable to the states. the right to keep and bear arms is no more of a states' rights issue than is the right to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

personally, i think SCOTUS will hole that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th. however, i think they will also hold that "reasonable" restrictions somehow to not infringe...and that just about any restriction you can think of that applies outside the home will be "reasonable".

McDonald v. Chicago to be heard early March by SCOTUS will likely find the 2nd is incorporated. I don't think any restriction outside can be deemed "reasonable" because of the "sensitive areas" of Heller. It wouldn't make any sense for SCOTUS to say schools and government buildings are sensitive areas when a state could simply say anything outside the home is a sensitive area. By the way Palmer v. District of Columbia was heard in Federal Court just yesterday, and deals with "bear arms" and what is and is not sensitive. DC is trying to argue the whole city is "sensitive," which is frankly insane since they did issue carry permits, although very few just to retired police and probably some "connected" individuals.

[dsnover]

I really and truly do not understand how the Bill of Rights is considered 'Federal' only in application, nor State. They are not 'Rights' granted to the people, they are RESTRICTIONS on the government, only enumerated so that future powermongers could not abridge them (fat lot of good that did). My opinion is that We the People have been sitting on our hands far to long, and have allowed 'them' to think that they are 'rights' to be granted to us as 'subjects'.

[headcase]

<snip> And as the Creators of the Constitution, and naming and designating 3 entities "the Government, the States, and the People", we strictly reserve said right to ourselves far and above encroachment from any other form of government.

<snip>.

<snip> My opinion is that We the People have been sitting on our hands far to long, and have allowed 'them' to think that they are 'rights' to be granted to us as 'subjects'.

The fact of the matter is that there is no We the People any more. There are a very small percentage of residents of this country who consider themselves "The People", but that doesn't translate into all of the residents of this country being "The People". In order to be "The People", the people would have to stand up and demand to be seen as "The People". Without some sort of universal catalyst, that is not going to happen. Without a clear majority willing to demand their voices be heard, under threat of violence, the vocal super minority will be dealt with by the government as they see fit, with impunity.

There is a reason every member of the government was quick to portray themselves as just an average American right after 9/11, and it wasn't patriotism. It was the understanding that at that moment, the people were "The People". We were able to put aside everything else and focus our collective anger. It is the very real possibility of this happening in response to something the government does, that allowed us to live like we were free for so long.

Air conditioning, welfare, consumer electronics, and police powers have made even the thought of rebellion far fetched for most residents. Our masters found a way to make our chains sit lightly upon us.

I agree with the sentiments, but the reality is that the government will do what it likes, to whomever it likes, until they do something that lights a fire under the majority. Until then, they can, and will, do as they please.

[mak47]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's pretty simple. A state doesn't have the authority to deny someone the right to free speech, or restrict it in any way--CA is an excellent case in point--so why would they have the authority to restrict any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?