The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10, 2011, 10:09 PM   #26
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,859
Al, he is indeed. And, looking at the bills he signed and the bills he vetoed (and not just the gun stuff) he's very hard to pigeonhole.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:22 PM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
For those unfamiliar with Richards v. Prieto, it was previously Sykes v. McGinness. In the original incarnation, the Sacramento sheriff's department relented and went with more permissive permitting guidelines. The lawsuit was then relocated to Yola County. In the second incarnation, the case went to the District Court, and the judge found for the sheriff's department.

However, part of the judge's rationale for upholding a discretionary and overly restrictive process for concealed carry permits was the idea that unlicensed, unloaded open carry was available as an alternative. Basically, as long as there was some way someone could carry a gun under some circumstances, the right to self-defense wasn't overly burdened.

Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.

Converting the DROS fees from fees to a tax didn't escape my notice, either. The Minneapolis Star case springs to mind as being in obvious conflict with this.

And what of AB 809? Wasn't the idea of a long gun registry ruled unconstitutional in the 5th last week?

Al, your ear is much closer to the ground than mine on this. Are you suggesting that Governor Brown signed these bills with this knowledge? I might be impressed with the guy if so.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:36 PM   #28
gdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 748
i like concealed carry better anyway. a good compromise is to have the county sheriffs grant more ccw permits.
gdeal is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:57 PM   #29
skidder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 634
This new law is why we need count our blessings and quit smiling every time they throw us a bread crumb. CCW permits are of the same evil as the open carry limitations. How have we become so complacent that we see it as privilege to carry a firearm with a permit? I scratch my head with wonder, and sorrow surrounds me when I read how lucky we are to have such a privilege. Like the axe at the butt of a tree, just waiting.....

A wise adversary knows that the game is played by subtle advancements. Advancements, that if not checked, will disguise themselves as another privilege to be thankful for. Political correctness is the enemy and we should never be afraid to tell the truth, hurt feelings or not. These liberals feed on our fear of stepping out from behind the PC curtain.

Seeing things in black and white is not always bad. The 2nd Amendment was written without infringement, and that is exactly how it is to be read. When we stand up for what is right, we expose where the ignorance truly lies.
__________________
Gun permit?? A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and "you will understand when you see all the lives they save". Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well. --skidder

Last edited by skidder; October 10, 2011 at 11:10 PM.
skidder is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:59 PM   #30
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.

Converting the DROS fees from fees to a tax didn't escape my notice, either. The Minneapolis Star case springs to mind as being in obvious conflict with this.

And what of AB 809? Wasn't the idea of a long gun registry ruled unconstitutional in the 5th last week?

Al, your ear is much closer to the ground than mine on this. Are you suggesting that Governor Brown signed these bills with this knowledge? I might be impressed with the guy if so.
I'm sure Al is more attuned to this point than I am, but I'd be pretty sure that Brown was well aware of these matters. It is popular to denigrate him as "Governor Moonbeam", but his a a very bright man and a very competent lawyer. And he has a complex view of the world.

I seem to recall that years ago, when he was mayor of Oakland, there was a notorious case in which a someone killed an alleged burglar, who was, I believe, a minority. There was the predictable community outcry. But when Brown was asked about it, he said something about a person being entitled to defend himself -- not the sort of answer likely to be well received in that community at that time.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 06:55 AM   #31
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.
I certainly hope that the plaintiffs have enough ammunition now that open carry has been barred to overturn the restrictive permit system.

Even if it doesn't work out, not much has been lost. There doesn't seem to be much advantage to be able to carry an unloaded handgun openly as opposed to carrying it unloaded in a box.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 07:05 AM   #32
FTG-05
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 259
"i like concealed carry better anyway. a good compromise is to have the county sheriffs grant more ccw permits."

This is why we lose.

FTG-05 is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 10:43 AM   #33
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Brown is not the mastermind some here have dubbed him to be. Just look at the national news and the pile-o-krap bills he just signed which had most sane people shaking their heads except certain individuals that I can't mention here. He is an ideologue that makes certain people, I can't mention here, very happy which is why he was elected in this whack-job state. No, he fits right in here and it strains reality to suggest otherwise or that he somehow foresees how this will help or hurt the cases pending in the Ninth Circuit. Some of us have "over-thunk" this simple issue. He rightly earned his nickname.
P.S. I agree that CCW is just another form of tyranny. Just let us carry anyway we like and leave us alone.
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 10:51 AM   #34
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
IMHO if a particular state feels the constitution on the United States doesn’t apply (such as in this case) then maybe the rest of the nation needs to cut off all federal funding to such states or maybe we need to consider expulsion from the Union

In the end what good is a union if parts of it want no part of participating with the rest of a nation?

At some point inherent rights must be inherent and respected or there is no right....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 10:55 AM   #35
goingape
Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 34
That stinks. Count your blessings, I live in new jersey. They don't permit civilians to carry at all. Right across the border in PA you can get permits to carry concealed.
__________________
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes states" Albert Einstein

Last edited by goingape; October 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM.
goingape is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 11:04 AM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
This is why we lose.
Care to elaborate?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 11:41 AM   #37
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,800
Let's be productive. We are not going to denounce CA yet again. Many RKBA supporters live there and fight the fight for rights. Nor do we need wise crack short responses.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 12:33 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
Many RKBA supporters live there and fight the fight for rights.
Very true, which is why I get sick of the canned "then just move to America" responses when folks in restrictive states complain. There are people in California, New Jersey, and Maryland who are fighting against much worse odds than those of us in permissive states. If they all just chose to leave, that does nothing to help residents of those states.

Advocates in California have provided us with a great deal of scholarship on 2nd Amendment issues, and some of the litigation they're pursuing could have positive effects far outside the borders of their own state. A win in Prieto or Peruta could render discriminatory "may issue" schemes in other states unconstitutional.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 02:01 PM   #39
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
My point at least from my perspective is laws by any state that stand openly and obviously contrary to the Constitution of the United States have the effect of negating a spelled out right set down by the founders.

At some point the justice system has to deal with the fact that laws can be passed much quicker than we can ever appeal or repeal them and awaiting court test is a very long process.

It seems forever a point of one group or another to purposely pass legislation for the express purpose of denying or greatly limiting whatever particular right for a long period.

The whole issue maybe eventually goes to court and gets overturned and a week or two later a couple of words are changed and the slightly modified law is passed and we start the whole process over.

Im not saying I have the perfect answer to all these things but what I am saying is the redundant over and over circumventing of rights needs to be dealt with. Either the constitution applies equally to all states as far as rights are concerned or I dont even know what to say.....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 06:44 PM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
I'm sure Al is more attuned to this point than I am, but I'd be pretty sure that Brown was well aware of these matters. It is popular to denigrate him as "Governor Moonbeam", but his a a very bright man and a very competent lawyer. And he has a complex view of the world.
I think you might be right. From an interview today:

Quote:
The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”
This led me to take a closer look at SB 610, which he also signed. That bill makes some slight changes to California's laws regarding issuance of carry permits:

Quote:
This bill would provide that the applicant would not be required
to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good cause being made, as specified.

The bill would clarify that the application fee for a new license includes the costs of required notices. [It also disallows the levying of any additional fees on the local level] The bill would also provide that no applicant would be required to obtain liability insurance as a condition of the license.

The bill would require the licensing authority to provide written notification of the determination of good cause to the applicant, as specified. (...) Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking
license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling
evidence to indicate that a test is necessary.
The bill also requires more timely communication if an application is denied.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Last edited by Tom Servo; October 11, 2011 at 06:54 PM.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 07:15 PM   #41
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 2,841
"Listened to the Police Chiefs"

Oh, so only top cops get to decide what's good for the people of California? Only Chiefs get to vote for the Governor?

Personally I do not believe that the ends should justify the means in a republic. The people of CA should as a group denounce this type of thing. It is not hard to understand that manipulating any right is a bad thing. This is an example of blatant abuse of power in my opinion
Chris_B is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 07:31 PM   #42
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Unless you live here (and a few other repressive states) you have no idea how bad it is and how often our legislature, controlled by persons of a persuasion that cannot be named here, comes up with stupid law after idiotic law including many relating to firearms. The law referenced above does nothing to make it easier to get a CCW permit for the (vast) majority of California residents. If you live in one of the few counties run by "good guy" sheriffs then you get your CCW permit. If not you don't - it's that simple. The idea of splitting our state into the right thinking south and east and the unnamed persons in western/coastal state was a great idea. Too bad the majority here have their foot on our necks.
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 09:28 PM   #43
skidder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 634
For me any law that is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment is just a bill. They may enforce it, but I would rather take my chances with a clean conscience than hunker down in fear. If any state rammed a law through that said it was OK to have slaves, would you do it? Why do we find this to be absurd and unthinkable, but do not put equal or greater value on the 2nd amendment?

I'll tell you why! We listen to the liberal media elevating one and not the other. Over time we've become complacent and dormant to the "debatable" 2nd amendment. This is the beginning of slavery in many ways. This right was not given to us on the bargaining table with King George III and I don't think that bargaining is going to give it back. Don't be afraid to adhere to your rights even when a so called law is passed to instruct you otherwise. Seeing the 2nd Amendment in black and white does not make you an extremist, right wing nut, narrow-minded, and dogmatic, it just shows your a proud American with some common sense.
__________________
Gun permit?? A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and "you will understand when you see all the lives they save". Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well. --skidder
skidder is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 10:31 PM   #44
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Al, your ear is much closer to the ground than mine on this. Are you suggesting that Governor Brown signed these bills with this knowledge? I might be impressed with the guy if so.
There were two things I commented upon, yesterday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al View Post
This is either a major blunder by Jerry Brown or a very slick move (which assumes he is smart enough to pander to his base, all the while knowing what is going to happen to this law)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al View Post
Fiddletown, Jerry Brown is an astute politician. This could possibly be one of the slickest things he's ever done.
The above were said after I had submitted two PM's in another forum, postulating this very idea, to individuals who do have their ears to the ground.

I know that my PM's were read, yet no answer was sent. No denial. No confirmation. Silence.

Over at CalGuns.net, hundreds of people are foaming at the mouth over this. Speculation is rampant. Yet complete silence from those in the know. A thread was started this morning in which one or two people are postulating something similar to what I wrote. Silence from those who might give an educated response. No denial. No confirmation.

The absence of an answer is in itself an answer.

Over at MD Shooters, a gentleman (who apparently has too much time on his hands) has rendered a county by county map of the US, as it regards carry (concealed or open, licensed or unlicensed).

I would like to draw your attention to the State of California. See those light green areas? Those are counties which are now Virtual Shall Issue in a May Issue State. A mere year and a half ago, most of those green counties would have been yellow or even red.

This doesn't mean that there is no work to be done there. Loads of it still need to be done. But there is a definite change.

So to those of you saying nothing is being done or nothing has changed... Open your eyes!

Al Norris is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 10:45 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
See those light green areas? Those are counties which are now Virtual Shall Issue in a May Issue State. A mere year and a half ago, most of those green counties would have been yellow or even red.
So...what you're telling us is that large portions of California are just like Alabama! Yeeh haw!

Oh wait, that's not what you're telling us.

There's no denying the progress in California. Sacramento's change in stance seems to have had a ripple effect, but there are still counties in which getting a permit is impossible. For many folks, it's largely dependent on a geographical lottery.

Quote:
The absence of an answer is in itself an answer.
I haven't heard anything, either, but I figured folks were too busy dealing with fallout. In a way, maybe they are. This situation gives new legs to Prieto, and could lead to state-wide reform.

What's intriguing is the idea (however unsubstantiated) that such was Gov. Brown's intention when he signed the bill.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 11:11 PM   #46
skidder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 634
Quote:
but there are still counties in which getting a permit is impossible
Tom-- CCW's are the opposite of concealed carry, but a good example of infringement. I struggle to see your logic when I read the 2nd Amendment. Freedom is not being on a government list. The last thing I would ever want for concealed carry is my weapon not to be concealed. And no I am not afraid to say this because it is an INFRINGEMENT. You can call them advancements all you want, but as soon as you buy into the idea of a CCW's your freedom is at stake.
__________________
Gun permit?? A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and "you will understand when you see all the lives they save". Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well. --skidder
skidder is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 11:27 PM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
I struggle to see your logic when I read the 2nd Amendment. Freedom is not being on a government list.
I hate to tell you this sir, but you're about 40 years late to the party. There's the way things should be, and the way they are. Complaining about the former doesn't do much good, but working within the parameters of the latter, it's possible to fix things.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 11, 2011, 11:53 PM   #48
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
My state is completely red
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old October 12, 2011, 12:04 AM   #49
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
What's intriguing is the idea (however unsubstantiated) that such was Gov. Brown's intention when he signed the bill.
Ummmm... Kind of the perfect case of plausible deniability, don't you think?

Skidder, there was a reason that Scalia made use of those 19th century cases (Chandler, Nunn, Reid, etc.), in writing the decision in Heller. That was to show that while the bearing of arms could be regulated by the State, it could not be outright banned.

In the case of CA laws, the Judges in both Richards and Peruta did not dismiss the cases because the right only extends to the home. They dismissed the suits because a form of open carry was available.

However the rest of us might reason that unloaded open carry is useless, these two courts did not.

With the passage of this ban on all forms of open carry, the only way to carry is concealed and that can only be accomplished by permit. A permit, whose standards of issuance is entirely arbitrary and capricious, can not stand constitutional muster.

There is now a substantial burden on the right of self defense (using the words of the 9th Circuit - Nordyke, where these cases are).

To expand a bit on what Tom said, we are taking baby steps to work within the framework of what is, to what should be.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 12, 2011, 12:49 AM   #50
skidder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 634
Tom-- Exposing is not complaining, nice try. I better go reread the part in the 2nd Amendment where it says, "if the infringement is over 40 years you have to accept it". Sorry! I could not find it in my version. You can accept the norm, but I will continue doing my job of exposing infringements.

CCW's are still infringements and a good way for the government to round up and brand the cattle.
__________________
Gun permit?? A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and "you will understand when you see all the lives they save". Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well. --skidder
skidder is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13096 seconds with 7 queries