Law California law banning most firearms in public is taking effect as the legal fight over it continues

[djacobox372]

Nope. Concealed carry at or around schools has not been legal for a long time.

This is because the CA "may issue" law is no longer applicable, meaning they can't turn you down to ccw if you aren't a criminal, etc. and they can't just decide nobody in their county/city gets a CCW. So this is a workaround way to blocking CCW. Makes zero sense.



That's not what court interpretations have held at all. The 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Period. The right to self defense is inherent to existence as an individual, whether against individuals or government. Arms are a legally protected and held right to use in self-defense.

This has been covered ad nauseam for centuries. The people who wrote the constitution almost uniformly wrote in support of individual firearm ownership. The courts all the way up to the supreme court have ruled this way in basically every landmark case. Yes, a militia is also protected and is the natural consequence of the declaration of independence and ensuing bill of rights. The 2nd amendment, nor its authors, have anywhere stated that individuals are to keep and bear arms hidden in their closet until a militia is formed and then they can exercise that right. It's a nonsensical stance.

Most of the court interpretations of the 2A are appalling. Precedent should only be followed if something can be interpreted multiple ways, when that is the case we should error on the side of precedent.

It's not the case here, there's not much left for interpretation with the 2A:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The intent of the law is clearly spelled out in the first half of the sentence. How does one get personal defense from that? If personal defense was the purpose they would have written it that way, it's not as if the drafters of the constitution were shitty writers.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good.

 

[BFoe]

editing. Wasn’t ready to post yet.

and then when I was, I fucked up and posted below instead of here. <45>

 

[BFoe]

20 incidents in 15 years of a country with 350 million...

ok

I was looking at mass shootings only since those were the tragedies I was referencing in the specific post in question. I’m also not sure how you counted 20, I count 37 listed in that source (not sure if it’s an exhaustive list or not).

But more importantly, data shows that as states relax restrictions on concealed carry permits, firearms assaults increase. My own state relaxed these requirements in 2011, and the result has been an increase in gun violence. I understand and that it’s tempting to think of this in two groups: super responsible, well-meaning concealed carry permit holders, and another group of lawless criminals—but the reality isn’t that convenient.

Don’t worry though, because in Bruen, the SCOTUS basically told us that any gun regulations passed must be of the type that are a “deeply rooted historical tradition“—not you, know, predicated on the safety of the citizenry or any silly little thing like that. So I’m not so sure it matters to SCOTUS show many people are hurt and killed in these incidents. They prefer to limit the abilities of the States to respond to new and modern challenges, and instead use a criteria which is extremely vague and one that they regularly disregard anyhow when it suits them.

I think the language is intentionally vague to allow for interpretation by the states. Personally, I do not believe the Constitution needs amending in regards to the 2nd Amendment, but that the states should be allowed to interpet the language to fit the peoples' will.

Pennsylvania's Constitution does not explicitly state anything regarding public carry, open or otherwise, but it is 100% implied in my opinion:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

I don’t think we’re too far off from one another. Initially, the 2nd Amendment only restrained the federal government, and it was state laws and constitutions that governed the states, like you said. And I agree, that is how the amendment is meant to function. Now that SCOTUS has FUBARed that, I don’t really know how we get back to the way the 2A should operate without amending it.

Personally, I think we could do more to clarify things in the amendment regarding the militia aspect, now that standing armies are a thing.

 

[nhbbear]

Yeah, this new law will completely stop all murders because the law says you can’t carry guns in public and criminals always obey the law

 

[Long Dark Blues]

I was looking at mass shootings only since those were the tragedies I was referencing in the specific post in question. I’m also not sure how you counted 20, I count 37 listed in that source (not sure if it’s an exhaustive list or not).

But more importantly, data shows that as states relax restrictions on concealed carry permits, firearms assaults increase. My own state relaxed these requirements in 2011, and the result has been an increase in gun violence. I understand and that it’s tempting to think of this in two groups: super responsible, well-meaning concealed carry permit holders, and another group of lawless criminals—but the reality isn’t that convenient.

Don’t worry though, because in Bruen, the SCOTUS basically told us that any gun regulations passed must be of the type that are a “deeply rooted historical tradition“—not you, know, predicated on the safety of the citizenry or any silly little thing like that. So I’m not so sure it matters to SCOTUS show many people are hurt and killed in these incidents. They prefer to limit the abilities of the States to respond to new and modern challenges, and instead use a criteria which is extremely vague and one that they regularly disregard anyhow when it suits them.



I don’t think we’re too far off from one another. Initially, the 2nd Amendment only restrained the federal government, and it was state laws and constitutions that governed the states, like you said. And I agree, that is how the amendment is meant to function. Now that SCOTUS has FUBARed that, I don’t really know how we get back to the way the 2A should operate without amending it.

Personally, I think we could do more to clarify things in the amendment regarding the militia aspect, now that standing armies are a thing.

I think the issue for many is whether laws like CA's actually represent the will of the people or if they're coming via a top-down push from government.

The latter is the concern.

 

[Zazen]

Hahaha! "Gun Violence" he says! Yeah, them evil guns are to blame for the actions of criminalist assholes murdering fellow human beings. Let's demonize an inanimate object that can sit for centuries without ever harming anyone. What a naïve or downright stupid take on the issue.

Failure to address root causes of violence and murder and an unwillingness to assign blame where it's due have cities with strict gun laws still seeing high murder rates committed via firearm.

Your solution is stricter gun laws to stop "gun violence"? Get back to us on how, exactly, that will stop criminals from committing murder which is illegal to begin with?

You don’t think guns make it easier to kill large groups of people though? It gives cowards confidence because they can safely murder from a distance and then off themselves. Republicans love bringing up mental health but they overwhelmingly vote no to any bill trying to address these issues. In fact anytime something is brought up that might solve these issues it gets shot down. At some point I’d just prefer people to be honest and say dead children are worth the sacrifice if it means keeping our gun rights the way they are

 

[helltoupee]

This has been covered ad nauseam for centuries. The people who wrote the constitution almost uniformly wrote in support of individual firearm ownership. The courts all the way up to the supreme court have ruled this way in basically every landmark case. Yes, a militia is also protected and is the natural consequence of the declaration of independence and ensuing bill of rights. The 2nd amendment, nor its authors, have anywhere stated that individuals are to keep and bear arms hidden in their closet until a militia is formed and then they can exercise that right. It's a nonsensical stance.

Going to have to respectfully disagree because your contention would insinuate or imply that the Founding Fathers didn't understand common English Grammar.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the comma after "a well regulated militia"? Commas delineate one thought that is being qualified by another thought - thereby imposing a restriction or qualification to the entire sentence. Now, if that were a period, you might be able to make the case that well regulated does not apply to the rest of the sentence, but it wasn't written that way.

For example, what if we were to say the following:

A well regulated Insulin program, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Insulin, shall not be infringed.

The above does not imply that insulin be kept and injected with absolute freedom by citizens, as that would kill a lot of people. If there were no such thing as the 2ndA, and you came across the above statement regarding insulin, 99% of English readers would understand that insulin not be kept from people, but only in the context of a highly regulated program.

To suggest that the 2ndA implies absolute freedom to own any firearm you wish, wherever you wish, demonstrates a very bad understanding of English grammar.

That's not to say I agree with all firearms bans, or even the subject of the OP. Going after CCW carriers is stupid and shortsighted. But overall, I think we all agree that some form of gun control is necessary when millions of people live rubbing elbows with each other. For example, if you think that a mentally unstable person, or even a 10 year old should NOT be able to buy an AK47 at 7-11 with his slurpee cheaply and legally, you are a proponent of gun control. The question is how far do we take it.

 

[spamking]

At some point I’d just prefer people to be honest and say dead children are worth the sacrifice if it means keeping our gun rights the way they are

Deaths are worth the sacrifice to keeping ANY and all rights.

 

[spamking]

Going to have to respectfully disagree because your contention would insinuate or imply that the Founding Fathers didn't understand common English Grammar.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the comma after "a well regulated militia"? Commas delineate one thought that is being qualified by another thought - thereby imposing a restriction or qualification to the entire sentence. Now, if that were a period, you might be able to make the case that well regulated does not apply to the rest of the sentence, but it wasn't written that way.

For example, what if we were to say the following:

A well regulated Insulin program, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Insulin, shall not be infringed.

The above does not imply that insulin be kept and injected with absolute freedom by citizens, as that would kill a lot of people. If there were no such thing as the 2ndA, and you came across the above statement regarding insulin, 99% of English readers would understand that insulin not be kept from people, but only in the context of a highly regulated program.

To suggest that the 2ndA implies absolute freedom to own any firearm you wish, wherever you wish, demonstrates a very bad understanding of English grammar.

That's not to say I agree with all firearms bans, or even the subject of the OP. Going after CCW carriers is stupid and shortsighted. But overall, I think we all agree that some form of gun control is necessary when millions of people live rubbing elbows with each other. For example, if you think that a mentally unstable person, or even a 10 year old should NOT be able to buy an AK47 at 7-11 with his slurpee cheaply and legally, you are a proponent of gun control. The question is how far do we take it.

 

[Zazen]

Deaths are worth the sacrifice to keeping ANY and all rights.

Unless it’s your children of course and I think that’s part of the issue. We’re so desensitized to this sort of thing that unless it personally affects us we don’t even consider changing anything. I also don’t think I mentioned the right being taken away. I’m just talking about the people who say we need to do something but then vote for politicians who vote no on those issues. That to me suggests that dead kids in school are less important than addressing common sense solutions which don’t have to involve taking away any rights

 

[spamking]

Unless it’s your children of course and I think that’s part of the issue. We’re so desensitized to this sort of thing that unless it personally affects us we don’t even consider changing anything. I also don’t think I mentioned the right being taken away. I’m just talking about the people who say we need to do something but then vote for politicians who vote no on those issues. That to me suggests that dead kids in school are less important than addressing common sense solutions which don’t have to involve taking away any rights

When you say something like "keeping our gun rights the way they are" that implies needing to take something away for something to change.

Regardless, of course parents are most concerned about something when it directly impacts their children. You're saying we're desensitized to a lot of this and I would agree. However, most of the arguments of "just do something" are emotional. They don't consider anything outside the narrow stance of blaming the guns and pushing some narrative that implies all gun owners are heartless killers. We're not. We're parents too. We weigh the risk of holding on to a right vs caving to emotional pleas from various people and choose not to give in.

The problem is that when you say "do something" nobody can agree on what that might be . . .

 

[Poatan Power]

Going to have to respectfully disagree because your contention would insinuate or imply that the Founding Fathers didn't understand common English Grammar.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the comma after "a well regulated militia"? Commas delineate one thought that is being qualified by another thought - thereby imposing a restriction or qualification to the entire sentence. Now, if that were a period, you might be able to make the case that well regulated does not apply to the rest of the sentence, but it wasn't written that way.

For example, what if we were to say the following:

A well regulated Insulin program, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Insulin, shall not be infringed.

The above does not imply that insulin be kept and injected with absolute freedom by citizens, as that would kill a lot of people. If there were no such thing as the 2ndA, and you came across the above statement regarding insulin, 99% of English readers would understand that insulin not be kept from people, but only in the context of a highly regulated program.

To suggest that the 2ndA implies absolute freedom to own any firearm you wish, wherever you wish, demonstrates a very bad understanding of English grammar.

That's not to say I agree with all firearms bans, or even the subject of the OP. Going after CCW carriers is stupid and shortsighted. But overall, I think we all agree that some form of gun control is necessary when millions of people live rubbing elbows with each other. For example, if you think that a mentally unstable person, or even a 10 year old should NOT be able to buy an AK47 at 7-11 with his slurpee cheaply and legally, you are a proponent of gun control. The question is how far do we take it.

Writing this respectfully too, fwiw.

This has been debated to death in the last century and concluded. It's finished. The very premise is laughable. The entire bill of rights is about limiting the federal government's power against the people (individually and collectively) and protecting the exercise of rights. But, according to this perspective, the 2nd amendment is an odd outlier.

Your outdated and disprovable premise is that the 2nd amendment, unlike any of the other amendments penned, was intended to limit the power of the individual and endorse the power of the federal government to regulate/withhold firearms from citizens except in one context. What context? Insurrection against the federal government with an organized militia. So your premise is that the federal government regulates/withholds firearms from citizens until the people decide to dismantle the federal government, at which point, the federal government as an institution says "oh okay" and walks the plank willingly. Obviously, and painfully so, the 2nd amendment was a protection from the government and for the people to protect their rights to arms as an extension of self-defense, and self-defense of their god given (naturally inherited) rights. To argue the antithesis of this is an argument in diction, based on a pre-existing bias, not merit.

Real anti-gun advocates have moved on from this losing argument in favor of the 'greater good and safety for society' approach and "the 2nd amendment is outdated" and 'technology has surpassed the confines of the 2nd amendment." Anyone still holding onto this fledgling century old perspective on a well regulated militia is just supporting old propaganda that supreme courts have ruled against almost unanimously.

Imho, of course, based on people much smarter than me, not my own unique understanding.

Cheers

 

[Poon Goon]

I finally went ahead and bought a gun the other day and I could instantly feel an increase in my freedom. Others could probably tell too because when I got my oil changed that day the shop owner gave me this badass calendar for free.

 

[RoastBeast]

Nothing fixes violent crime more than taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

How does the left propose California gets guns out of the hands of the non law abiding citizens now?

 

[oldshadow]

It's the shit hole known as California so nothing like this surprises me.

I don't think it will pass Supreme Court review but who knows.

I don't live there and lost interest in going there a long time ago so it doesn't affect me.