Court overturns concealed-carry rule in blow to California gun law

Comments (70)

This site censors it’s comments. Nice. Have a great day!

Feb 13, 2014 10:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crunchy wrote:

The law wasn’t over turned. The law was clarified to stop county sheriffs from using arbitrary and capricious reasons to not grant CCW permits. The decision only removes a gift that sheriffs used to give to their campaign contributors. A CCW applicant still must meet the other requirements.

Feb 13, 2014 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaydawg wrote:

Thank God!

Next step: personal ownership of nuclear weapons.

The Second Amendment grants us the right to bear arms. Not guns, ARMS! And nuclear weapons are definitely arms.

Our rights are being taken away from us! Wake up sheeple!!

Feb 13, 2014 11:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Can’t talk about California’s gun laws but NYC’s laws are even stricter unless of course you’re connected,rich or a celebrity and there lies the problem.We have something called equal protection under the law,think it’s in the constitution and it’s being violated everyday in America.

Feb 13, 2014 11:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse

This shouldn’t have to be a landmark ruling. It should be common sense. No matter how much you hate the Second Amendment, it’s the law of the land, and California has violated this law. This is unfortunately only one small step towards some Californians getting slightly more privileges. Every city and every country should be held to this standard.

If this isn’t overturned by criminals in the government who have no regard for our rights, it will probably require individual cases in every other county to become effective. Even though this ruling applies to the rest of the state, California’s local law enforcement have no incentive of respecting anyone’s rights and this will be a hard fought issue.

Feb 13, 2014 11:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Liberty_Arms wrote:

romperstomper1,

The problem with registration is that it is the “back door” way to future government abuses. Why not register your kitchen knives? According to FBI statistics (don’t take my word for it–check for yourself, i.e. Google “FBI Tables Weapons data Expanded Homicide Data”) account for huge numbers of injuries and deaths.

The bad guys are ALWAYS going to have the instrumentalities of crime. Why shouldn’t we have the same opportunity to defend ourselves from such nefarious deeds without fear of the government siding with the bad guys?

Feb 13, 2014 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Liberty_Arms wrote:

romperstomper1,

The problem with registration is that it is the “back door” way to future government abuses. Why not register your kitchen knives? According to FBI statistics (don’t take my word for it–check for yourself, i.e. Google “FBI Tables Weapons data Expanded Homicide Data”) account for huge numbers of injuries and deaths.

The bad guys are ALWAYS going to have the instrumentalities of crime. Why shouldn’t we have the same opportunity to defend ourselves from such nefarious deeds without fear of the government siding with the bad guys?

Feb 13, 2014 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Liberty_Arms wrote:

romperstomper1,

The problem with registration is that it is the “back door” way to future government abuses. Why not register your kitchen knives? According to FBI statistics (don’t take my word for it–check for yourself, i.e. Google “FBI Tables Weapons data Expanded Homicide Data”) account for huge numbers of injuries and deaths.

The bad guys are ALWAYS going to have the instrumentalities of crime. Why shouldn’t we have the same opportunity to defend ourselves from such nefarious deeds without fear of the government siding with the bad guys?

Feb 13, 2014 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Liberty_Arms wrote:

romperstomper1,

The problem with registration is that it is the “back door” way to future government abuses. Why not register your kitchen knives? According to FBI statistics (don’t take my word for it–check for yourself, i.e. Google “FBI Tables Weapons data Expanded Homicide Data”) account for huge numbers of injuries and deaths.

The bad guys are ALWAYS going to have the instrumentalities of crime. Why shouldn’t we have the same opportunity to defend ourselves from such nefarious deeds without fear of the government siding with the bad guys?

Feb 13, 2014 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mrkjessup wrote:

jesus christ died for nothing

Feb 13, 2014 11:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mrkjessup wrote:

jesus christ died for nothing

Feb 13, 2014 11:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fr0ntSight wrote:

Thank god! Hopefully something comes from this…it has been impossible to get a ccp in Los Angeles forever…yet we have some of the highest gun crime rates. They like to ban law abiding citizens from arming themselves in the places they need it most.

Feb 13, 2014 11:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jambo86 wrote:

Broey77: What separates us from other countries is that U.S. citizens kill more of their fellow citizens with guns than the citizens of just about every other country. You really need to examine your way of looking at the world. We live in fear because we never know when some deranged person might pull out their legal firearm and shoot us. If you call that freedom you are very wrong.

Feb 13, 2014 11:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jambo86 wrote:

I guess I’ll order my Glock and hope someone gives me a nasty look.

Feb 13, 2014 11:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheFactsMan wrote:

@romperstomper1:
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, AND the Constitution DOES protect against the government registering citizen’s firearms (although not the topic of this article; a concealed carry permit does not equal gun registration, only the legal right to carry a firearm). Both the 1941 Property Requisition Act and the 1986 Firearm Owner Protection Act contain specific language against the use of a firearm registry, building a case against a repeat of the horrors witnessed during WWII when registries were used to first disarm and then massacre civilian populations by German forces in Occupied zones.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/36halc.pdf

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
-G. Santayana

Feb 13, 2014 11:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheFactsMan wrote:

@romperstomper1:
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, AND the Constitution DOES protect against the government registering citizen’s firearms (although not the topic of this article; a concealed carry permit does not equal gun registration, only the legal right to carry a firearm). Both the 1941 Property Requisition Act and the 1986 Firearm Owner Protection Act contain specific language against the use of a firearm registry, building a case against a repeat of the horrors witnessed during WWII when registries were used to first disarm and then massacre civilian populations by German forces in Occupied zones.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/36halc.pdf

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
-G. Santayana

Feb 13, 2014 11:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dynamic88 wrote:

The 2A says, “the right to keep and bear arms” shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say keep and store arms at home. It says keep and bear arms. I think its crystal clear the 2A allows people to own and carry firearms for protection. Anyone who tries to take away that right is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Feb 14, 2014 12:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
biglib01 wrote:

Opponents don’t care about the constitution they support a tyrannical president who does whatever he pleases .changes laws with a stroke of a pen whenever he wants Their term law of the land only applies to their agendas. Doma was the law of the land and they got rid of that. Now obamacare is the law of the land even though his majesty changes it monthly on his own. Get ready the 22nd A. Is next.

Feb 14, 2014 1:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheFactsMan wrote:

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and both the 1941 Property Requisition Act and the 1986 Firearm Owner Protection Act protect American citizens against a national gun registry. Don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourself.

constitution DOT org/2ll/2ndschol/36halc DOT pdf

Feb 14, 2014 2:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

The second amendment also says the people bearing arms should be part of a well regulated militia, but I don’t see the US gun-nuts suporting that part of the constitution – they cherry pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don’t.

So… this court thinks that people carrying guns in public do not have to be of good moral character and do not need to have a good reason. Any idiot who wants to carry a gun because it makes him feel big can do so. No wonder the USA has a mass killing every few weeks…

Feb 14, 2014 5:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
yorkies1 wrote:

I don’t feel safer knowing this

Feb 14, 2014 6:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
yorkies1 wrote:

I don’t feel safer knowing this

Feb 14, 2014 6:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
Art16 wrote:

You cannot legislate into being people who behave responsibly. The thought that we have too many freedoms is the goad of every repressive and dictatorial regime, and has been so for millennia. People are not necessarily born to be freaking monsters and idiots and criminals and drug addicts, they are formed that way because of the abandonment of parental responsibilities to raise children to be constructive and law abiding people. We really have far too many weak minded clowns in political office who pander to the causes of these problems to garner votes while doing arm waving side shows as “The war against….” that always fall flat on their face. Our present administration with little Junior High Obama and his loyal sidekick Two Gun Holder, is bereft with “in your face” political pandering and nonsense and the Pinhead Flotilla they have in tow exhibits a dazzling array of illogical moronic stupidity and denial of just plain common sense. This leads to a role model for any child and young adult that reinforces the abandonment of parental mandated responsibilities. What we see on the street is the result. However, those who were raised correctly to not become drug addicts, criminals, murderers, and the like, and are not, are victims of the slime campaigns to remove the rights we enjoy to try to control the behaviors of people who should have been pointed in the right direction in the first place. We seem to be infested with people whose alum shriveled minds just want to take away and not address the root causes of this countries problems.

Feb 14, 2014 7:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChazzMatt wrote:

What does the picture attached to this story (Uzi submachine gun) have to do with citizens using concealed carry for self defense? Seems to be passive aggressive commentary by a liberal editor against this ruling.

Feb 14, 2014 7:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

Sorry @NY Loner; you got that one wrong.. I not going to waste my time answering you silly analogy, but I’ll give you a clue; Try looking up 1776; Continental Congress; Boston Tea Party; right to bear arms; Revolutionary war…

Feb 14, 2014 8:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
man1234567 wrote:

تحذير قد تكون مراقب
هل تستخدم امريكا و اسرائيل الانترنت بمواقعه ( يوتيوب, فيس بوك, تويتر,غرف الشات..) للتجسس!
warning you may be watched
do usa & israel use the internet ( youtube, facebook, twitter, chat rooms,ect…)to collect informations,,,,can we call that spying ?
why they ask for ur name,age,gender,occupation,place of work,ur mobile number………….ect, can they use these informations in a way that may harm you?!

Feb 14, 2014 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
man1234567 wrote:

تحذير قد تكون مراقب
هل تستخدم امريكا و اسرائيل الانترنت بمواقعه ( يوتيوب, فيس بوك, تويتر,غرف الشات..) للتجسس!
warning you may be watched
do usa & israel use the internet ( youtube, facebook, twitter, chat rooms,ect…)to collect informations,,,,can we call that spying ?
why they ask for ur name,age,gender,occupation,place of work,ur mobile number………….ect, can they use these informations in a way that may harm you?!!!!!!!!!!!

Feb 14, 2014 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

Time to amend the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow guns only for police and military use. The Koch brothers, who are behind all the stand-your-ground gun laws that essentially are a license to murder and other gun rights legislation, are going to force this issue too far to the left if they don’t back off. Average Americans across the land want reasonable gun control legislation and the time is NOW. Time to send all republican/liberterian/tea party elected officials home for good and replace them with Independent and Democratic candidates who want to restore reason and democracy in America.

Feb 14, 2014 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
riposte wrote:

to again repeat a slogan, that is so true…people kill people..not the guns…better vetting will help..but locking the criminal element up longer , instead of releasing them early for overcrowding, will narrow the shootings down for sure….

Feb 14, 2014 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

theovulator wrote:
“Well regulated” in this case, and as clearly defined in the time period written, means “adequately provisioned”.

It means nothing of the sort. It means controlled or subject to regulations, just as it does today. This whole notion by you righties that the Framers somehow got confused and used the wrong word is a joke.

First, you are leaping head-first into the Intentional Fallacy. You do not have some magical ability to divine the intention of the dead writer and tell us that what he intended to say was ‘well-equiped’ but he got it a bit wrong.

Second, evidence of the use of regulated to mean controlled comes from elsewhere. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, for example:

“every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred”

the collocation of ‘well-regulated and disciplined’ makes it clear that well-regulated = controlled, and the following ‘sufficiently armed and accoutred makes it equally clear that your well-regulated = adequately provisioned is nonsense.

More. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution:

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”

This confirms that any militia should indeed be subject to regulations, organised, and disciplined.

We can also turn to the OED for samples of use:

“1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

Neither of those can possibly mean ‘adequately provisioned’ as you claim, but make a whole load of sense in terms of controlled and subject to regulations.

theovulator wrote:
“Rather hard to judge “good moral character” if that person being judged has previously broken no laws.”

Yet, amazingly, other advanced countries manage to do exactly that. Do you really think Americans are so sub-standard that they can’t do what other countries do as a matter of routine?

The UK, for example, establishes good moral character by having the applicant interviewed by the Police, examined by a psychiatrist, and provide references from two individuals of good standing. This works much better than “have you shot anyone? No? Here…. have a gun” because plenty of idiots haven’t broken a law (yet) – and you want to arm those idiots.

That is pretty much the crux of the problem – most of the mythical ‘responsible law-abiding gun owners’ in the USA may be law-abiding, but they are far from being responsible. All you have to do is look at how many mass-killings are done with a weapon obtained from a law-abiding gun owner.

Feb 14, 2014 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChazzMatt wrote:

The silly Uzi picture in this article has NOTHING to do with the content, which is about concealed carry. Media bias. No one conceal carries an UZI. Show a woman pulling a revolver out of a purse or something.

Feb 14, 2014 11:56am EST  --  Report as abuse

This is not too complicated people, the way San Diego wrote their regulation enforcing the state law went a tad to far. So they where told by the courts to make it slightly less restrictive. This is how the system of checks and balances works people.

This was not some benchmark decision on the state of, or more precisely, the lack of gun control in this nation. The only way that is going to change to get rid of the radical republicans that are beholden to the gun nuts. then we may be able to get some sensible simple NATIONAL based steps to address this national issue. This is not a local issue as states/cities have open borders. That is why you see high incidents of gun violence in cites with restrictive gun laws, there is nothing stopping straw man purchases from going to the states with lax gun laws, buying bunch of guns, then bringing them to these inner cities and selling on the black market at a tidy profit. heck the gun lobby even continually blocks funding for studies to see where all these guns come, why is that? Because they know if the truth gets out, they are done.

Feb 14, 2014 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

@Bakhtin. You would be well served to take the time to read the Heller decision. The SCOTUS covers all this material extensively. In the context of constitutional law it is invalid to equate well-regulated to keeping time. You might find the reading instructive. Essentially the court found that common sense plain english reading of the two sentences prevails over artificial construct. The liberal justices did not pursue your line of reasoning. It is easy reading.
Also, easily available and very pertinent are the oral arguments of Abramski recently in the SCOTUS.

Feb 14, 2014 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

@Bakhtin. You would be well served to take the time to read the Heller decision. The SCOTUS covers all this material extensively. In the context of constitutional law it is invalid to equate well-regulated to keeping time. You might find the reading instructive. Essentially the court found that common sense plain english reading of the two sentences prevails over artificial construct. The liberal justices did not pursue your line of reasoning. It is easy reading.
Also, easily available and very pertinent are the oral arguments of Abramski recently in the SCOTUS.

Feb 14, 2014 1:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TigerSharkRWR wrote:

Citizens in CA may obtain a CCW through a lengthy and expensive process. The Democratic Party considers the $20 it takes to get an ID in Pennsylvania excessive, since ultra poor cannot afford $20. Yet no mention of the ridiculous lengths Californians go through to get CCWs is mentioned. HUNDREDS of dollars in fees, training and mandatory licensing.

Also, since when do we need to show “good cause” to the Federal government for our rights? Do you go to the polls to vote and get asked “now why do you think you NEED to vote? Prove it!” Or maybe news reporters should submit a writ showing “cause” for printing a story before it comes out? These things are an obvious abridgement of the Bill of Rights, whether you agree with the 2nd Amendment or not!

Feb 14, 2014 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TigerSharkRWR wrote:

Citizens in CA may obtain a CCW through a lengthy and expensive process. The Democratic Party considers the $20 it takes to get an ID in Pennsylvania excessive, since ultra poor cannot afford $20. Yet no mention of the ridiculous lengths Californians go through to get CCWs is mentioned. HUNDREDS of dollars in fees, training and mandatory licensing.

Also, since when do we need to show “good cause” to the Federal government for our rights? Do you go to the polls to vote and get asked “now why do you think you NEED to vote? Prove it!” Or maybe news reporters should submit a writ showing “cause” for printing a story before it comes out? These things are an obvious abridgement of the Bill of Rights, whether you agree with the 2nd Amendment or not!

Feb 14, 2014 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Darr247 wrote:

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

So take your mugging like a good little comrade and don’t worry – we know what’s best for you better than you do.

Feb 14, 2014 10:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bookfan wrote:

All rights have limits, every single one. This includes bearing arms.

Gun hobbyists react like whining toddlers who’ve had there toy taken away because it’s time for a nap.

Feb 15, 2014 1:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
kenkatzen wrote:

Do you think Dianne Feinsteins head is exploding?

Feb 15, 2014 1:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@akrozbi

I am familiar enough with Heller decision, thank you.

While the general thrust is acceptable – the militia needed for a free state is obtained by granting an individual right to bear arms – it stretched on details.

Specifically, it ignores the well-regulated aspect. If the need for a militia logically necessitates a right to bear arms, they the need for a well-regulated militia, by the same logical reasoning, necessitates those who bear arms to be well-regulated.

Also, the self-defence argument is really stretched. SCOTUS argue that defending the state is also defending the individuals in the state (the common defence argument) and hence a right to self-defence is built in, and supports this with an idiomatic reading of ‘bear arms’, but this is attempting to determine intent and is therefore an intentional fallacy. The 2nd *says* keeping and bearing arms. It *says* nothing about a right to use them in self-defence, so the SCOTUS decision is going outside the text to get that one.

The counter argument that the 2nd gives a right to bear and keep arms to be used only in defence of the state makes perfect sense, and it is notable that several state constitutions actually specify a right to self-defence.

Feb 15, 2014 2:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“He was telling me a few days ago that the GOP took the House in 2010 because of Gerrymandering. Of course Gerrymandering happens after the US Census so it had no effect in 2010, but he wouldn’t know.”

TheNewWorld… was there a census in 2000, and was it followed by redistricting? Yes or no.

Feb 15, 2014 2:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tucker2011 wrote:

Here’s a few quotes from the Federalist Papers concerning the 2nd Amendment:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

I believe they spelled it out quite clearly.

Feb 15, 2014 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
Tucker2011 wrote:

I attempted to post this comment a few hours ago, but apparently it was not actually posted. So here it is again:

Here’s a few quotes from the Federalist Papers concerning the 2nd Amendment:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

I believe they spelled it out quite clearly.

Feb 15, 2014 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NAZLOP wrote:

We are in a fight of our lives with this despotic government that has been changing for the worse due to corrupt politicians and judges that are trying to change our Constitution that was inspired of God. Evil is now running on all cylinders and a judges like this these come far and in between to be found in our Judicial system. If the common people don’t unite now to protect our Constitution and it’s God given rights, then the fight will certainly be lost in the next couple of years. We will be in a state of no return with marshal law and all of it’s trappings.Someone please tell me what we can do to unite to consolidate our power that our vast numbers compromise? I want to be in a movement that secures a bright and safe future for our sons and daughters.

Feb 15, 2014 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SlowMo wrote:

This photo shows more ignorance. There is NO UZI in the photo and NO RIFLE but don’t let facts change a fictional picture.

Feb 15, 2014 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SlowMo wrote:

There is NO Uzi or Rifle in that picture. But don’t let the facts ruin a good fictional photo.

Feb 15, 2014 9:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SlowMo wrote:

The caption on the photo is inflammatory. There is NO UZI or RIFLE in the picture. If you want to save lives, the criminal gangs need to be eliminated.

Feb 15, 2014 9:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SlowMo wrote:

The caption on the photo is inflammatory. There is NO UZI or RIFLE in the picture. If you want to save lives, the criminal gangs need to be eliminated.

Feb 15, 2014 9:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
adrian88 wrote:

Funny. Liberals claim it’s some huge obstacle to Constitutional rights if we require people prove their identity before they vote. Yet they don’t consider any of the 100′s of anti-gun laws as an “infringement” of any sort. They invent rights where there are none, and ignore a right that is specifically enumerated. Hypocrites, the lot of them!

Feb 16, 2014 11:52am EST  --  Report as abuse

The Second Amendment doesn’t speak of “guns.” It speaks about “arms.” At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the ultimate weapons were the muzzle loading smooth bore cannon and the muzzle loading rifled musket. And both could be acquired by private parties. But even the most absolute Second Amendment supporter would be unlikely to extend the original intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights to modern times. If the Second Amendment means what it says, rather than being a right subject to a reasonable interpretation with the times, why am I not allowed to purchase an M2 .50 cal machine gun and a modest supply of grenades? If the intent of the Second Amendment is, as many of its modern supporters have suggested, to allow the citizenry to confront the government why should we be able to restrain private parties to purchase attack helicopters, drones, mobile artillery and strike fighters? The truth is that the gun lobby effectively ignores the word “arms” and hopes people will just assume it means “guns.” We already radically regulate in stark violation of the black letter language of the Second Amendment because to do otherwise would mean anarchy and chaos.

Feb 16, 2014 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The Second Amendment doesn’t speak of “guns.” It speaks about “arms.” At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the ultimate weapons were the muzzle loading smooth bore cannon and the muzzle loading rifled musket. And both could be acquired by private parties. But even the most absolute Second Amendment supporter would be unlikely to extend the original intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights to modern times. If the Second Amendment means what it says, rather than being a right subject to a reasonable interpretation with the times, why am I not allowed to purchase an M2 .50 cal machine gun and a modest supply of grenades? If the intent of the Second Amendment is, as many of its modern supporters have suggested, to allow the citizenry to confront the government why should we be able to restrain private parties to purchase attack helicopters, drones, mobile artillery and strike fighters? The truth is that the gun lobby effectively ignores the word “arms” and hopes people will just assume it means “guns.” We already radically regulate in stark violation of the black letter language of the Second Amendment because to do otherwise would mean anarchy and chaos.

Feb 16, 2014 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jaredite83 wrote:

Romperstomper1 Should remind himself that all the major gun violence is taking place in democrat run states and cities. So, to blame republicans(I am libertarian0 about increasing gun violence, well, think again. Anything the constitution doesn’t permit or deny, is left for the states to decide according to the constitution, therefore the federal government has no right to register anything because that right is not in the constitution. State might argue about that case but not the federal satan. History has proven that whenever the government registers guns, it is only so that later on they can find the gun owners and confiscate their guns, for that reason there is no practicala argument for gun registry which doesn’t violate citizens fundamental right for his property.Owning a gun, is not to shoot people, it is to carry the means for self defence. Finland has armed forces, not to fight the russians, but to let the russians see that we have a plausible means for defence, so that Russians would not feel comfident in attacking us. Criminals love to attack unarmed victims, that is why carrying a gun is a great self defence and a way to prevent any attack in the first place.

(comment was to answer what romperstomper1 wrote:
The 2nd amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, however, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can’t register the guns. This is a Tpublican lie promoted by the large NRA contributions. To promote fear. The only reason people carry guns is to shoot people, and that is the truth. How many shootings in schools have there been since Sandy Hook? How many before? As long as Tpublicans are in office, expect more. Have a great day!)

Feb 17, 2014 8:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jaredite83 wrote:

Romperstomper1 Should remind himself that all the major gun violence is taking place in democrat run states and cities. So, to blame republicans(I am libertarian0 about increasing gun violence, well, think again. Anything the constitution doesn’t permit or deny, is left for the states to decide according to the constitution, therefore the federal government has no right to register anything because that right is not in the constitution. State might argue about that case but not the federal satan. History has proven that whenever the government registers guns, it is only so that later on they can find the gun owners and confiscate their guns, for that reason there is no practicala argument for gun registry which doesn’t violate citizens fundamental right for his property.Owning a gun, is not to shoot people, it is to carry the means for self defence. Finland has armed forces, not to fight the russians, but to let the russians see that we have a plausible means for defence, so that Russians would not feel comfident in attacking us. Criminals love to attack unarmed victims, that is why carrying a gun is a great self defence and a way to prevent any attack in the first place.

(comment was to answer what romperstomper1 wrote:
The 2nd amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, however, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can’t register the guns. This is a Tpublican lie promoted by the large NRA contributions. To promote fear. The only reason people carry guns is to shoot people, and that is the truth. How many shootings in schools have there been since Sandy Hook? How many before? As long as Tpublicans are in office, expect more. Have a great day!)

Feb 17, 2014 8:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
petertimber wrote:

The theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself and your family makes perfect sense

Feb 17, 2014 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
petertimber wrote:

The theory that becoming a victim is morally superior to defending yourself and your family makes perfect sense.

Feb 17, 2014 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
Homeimps wrote:

I don’t have a problem with people owning guns for protection in their own homes, but cannot understand the logic behind allowing them to carry weapons in public. So many people go on about their 2nd Amendment rights, but what about MY right to go to Target without having to worry about some loose cannon whipping out a gun at any moment and killing me in the crossfire. I never hear discussion about restricting gun use to a citizen’s own property and feel that might solve the never-ending battle about gun control.

Feb 17, 2014 12:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MDSTARKE wrote:

No where in the picture above the caption stating there is an uzi in the three guns pictured is there an uzi there is a lower reciever for an ar-15 type rifle a cobray mac-10 clone and some goofy looking chinese tech nine 22 caliber knock off. Please fix the caption thanks , you wouldn’t want people to think you don’t know what your talking about.

Feb 17, 2014 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Windercott wrote:

Jambo88,

This is a site for educated grown ups, you should run along now and go back to playing with your GI Joe doll. There’s a good lad, straight to bed after mind, you have school in the morning and it’s quiet evident you can’t afford to miss another minute!

theovulato,

A good point. The thing is, regardless of what side your on, is that Gun Regulation is coming and coming soon. And guess what? its well needed. Is there really anyone who would argue that more gun control is not needed in the US? I don’t think that anyone really needs the dead body of their two year old in their arms before they see reason.
While we could argue constitutional interpretation till the proverbial cows learn to use keys and let themselves in the front door, the US was a very different place when the constitution was written, and there is no way they could have anticipated that the mass murder of school children would become common place when the constitution was being framed. That aside from practicing for fire drill they would drill for school gun attacks. While I am not against guns, I grew up with them in fact and learned to shoot when I was nine, there is desperate need for better control. Tit for tat gun carrying is not the answer, you need to start by taking the guns off the black market, then start reforming gun licensing laws under a federal act. Let people have their arms, lets just make sure they understand responsible use and storage of the weapon, and are members of gun clubs etc.. so they know how to use the weapon, and don’t accidentally mistake their spouse of child as a burglar and blow their head off.
The arguments for and against gun control in the US are too polarized,this is because of political manipulation by lobbyists and interests groups on both sides. The result is of course that cogent, reasonable solutions get lost in a tirade of vitriolic, partisan, political opinion; the divide grows and grows, and the only ones who benefit from this are the politicians and the rich 1%, who usually have bodyguards and who’s children never die in mass school killings.

Feb 17, 2014 8:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
asfas5r wrote:

guns are a chicken and egg argument. People often feel the need for guns out of fears for personal security. However, it is precisely because there are so many guns that there such a level of insecurity. It is my understanding that gun related deaths in the US are highest (by some margin) compared to any other advanced, fully developed country. One source shows Germany in second place at a level that is about 38 times lower then the US, even though its population is less then 4 times lower. The issue of guns most evidence in the prevalence shootings at educational institutions undertaken by students.

Feb 17, 2014 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:

Lets see, in the USA:

400,000 annual deaths due to cigarettes

200,000 annual deaths due to medical malpractice

100,000 annual deaths due to prescription medications

95,000 annual deaths due to alcohol

15,000 annual deaths due to car accidents

12,000 annual fatalities due to non-suicide gun deaths

But there’s a national hysteria over – “guns?”

Feb 17, 2014 9:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
derdutchman wrote:

It is a shame that the people with the most at risk, namely those who do NOT carry weapons as they go about their daily lives of working, playing, worshipping or shopping have so little say in their own safety. Guns surround them, guns intimidate them, guns horrify them, guns interrupt their thoughts, their conversations and their attempts to pursue happiness. I’m not sure that’s what the Second Amendment was intended to do.

Feb 18, 2014 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
fortdearborn wrote:

Back to the 18th century. Handguns in particular are made and used to kill people..adding more ways to do that creates more deaths and injuries, Those are the facts. At some point we have to trust in something worthwile otherwize demcracy is dead. To have have persoanl freedom in this century requires hand guns to be banned.

Feb 19, 2014 12:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fortdearborn wrote:

Back to the 18th century. Handguns in particular are made and used to kill people..adding more ways to do that creates more deaths and injuries, Those are the facts. At some point we have to trust in something worthwile otherwize demcracy is dead. To have have persoanl freedom in this century requires hand guns to be banned.

Feb 19, 2014 12:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GarrettF wrote:

Dan Whitcomb is obviously a left wing communist anti USA type. I think we should require a permit to speak for all the people against the Constitution.

Feb 19, 2014 5:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GarrettF wrote:

BTW CCW permits are unconstitutional. You cannot require a permit for something that is a right.

Feb 19, 2014 5:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

Jambo86 wrote:

“Broey77: What separates us from other countries is that U.S. citizens kill more of their fellow citizens with guns than the citizens of just about every other country.

You really need to examine your way of looking at the world. We live in fear because we never know when some deranged person might pull out their legal firearm and shoot us. If you call that freedom you are very wrong”.

Jambo86. Americans in fear such that they desire and seek an effective means to defend themselves do not waste their time with “examining their way at looking at the world”.

Dumbass, a “deranged person” is not someone who is, by law, allowed to have a legal firearm to “shoot us”.

Granted, some who are deranged, do have firearms. But that’s not the subject matter here.

The matter IS what you call “wrong”. And that is the ABSOLUTE freedom, afforded to law-abiding citizens, under the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, granting said citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

And that’s what “separates us from other countries”. That when criminal miscreant assailants attack us on our streets, or break into our homes, we’re not defenseless, as those poor subjects and victims in other countries.

Us armed Americans are afforded the right to protect ourselves in these instances, and others, like a stinging tailed scorpion, or rattling tailed vipers, ready, or hopefully ready, when true danger approaches.

Is this not an intrinsic right of everyone?

And the added benefit is the message that goes out to all those criminals who devise in their minds unscrupulous designs against us.

Do you not lift a rock in the desert gingerly? With the mental predisposition that underneath such rock might lie a ready-to-strike scorpion or rattler?

So let the nefarious among us consider and possess the same predisposition, as they contemplate criminal actions against the law abiding . . . That actions against us might result, or very probably will result, in an explosive blast of self-defense.

Criminals beware.

Does the above sound reasonable? Most people think so. Idiots don’t.

Feb 19, 2014 10:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bdickers wrote:

Wow..a ruling that requires California to abide by the Constitution…
Congratulations California!

Feb 20, 2014 6:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:

Good for these judges. I think many on the courts today are clearly seeing how far reaching the government has become and have issued opinions and rulings to that fact. Thank God we have a layered system in our nation whereby the government cannot just take away all rights and liberties whenever they have a hankering to do so.

Feb 20, 2014 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
MargaD wrote:

I am all for strict gun laws that include background checks and mandentory gun safety classes, but I even think the “good cause” clause was wrong.

Feb 20, 2014 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
ReverendJim wrote:

The founding fathers were not silent after ratifying the second amendment and the other rights you would NOT want to have removed. They explained clearly the types (with out regard to technological advances of course) of firearms the amendment covers. I’m sorry some of you don’t know as much as you should about our government and our history, but just because YOU don’t understand something, doesn’t make IT wrong.

Feb 20, 2014 1:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.