[tomder55]

9th Circus just smacked down Kalifornia's restrictive gun control laws. ( Peruta v. San Diego).The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court leaned heavily on the Heller decision in deciding this case . Heller noted that there are many cases which say that a state may ban concealed carry so long as open carry is still allowed. But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

[speechlesstx]

While y'all are still pondering to address whether or not MAIG's intent to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is a good thing or not, the 9th Circus Court has discovered the right to "keep and bear arms" means the right to keep and "carry" arms for self defense. They struck down a San Diego rule that required citizens to show "good cause" to carry in order to obtain a carry permit.

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’” according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

...

Speakers of the English language will all agree: “bearing a weapon inside the home” does not exhaust this definition of “carry.” For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, “confrontation,” is “not limited to the home.” Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012). One needn’t point to statistics to recognize that the prospect of conflict—at least, the sort of conflict for which one would wish to be “armed and ready”—is just as menacing (and likely more so) beyond the front porch as it is in the living room. For that reason, “[t]o speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage.”

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/434042455587954688/photo/1

[speechlesstx]

Yeppers. you noticed, too.

[excon]

Hello again,

Yeah, you can't do that... Those silly libs...

But, NOTHING in a comprehensive background check diminishes your 2nd Amendment rights whatsoever... As YOU said a thousand times, you already HAVE a background check.. So, passing a COMPREHENSIVE one WON'T alter your life in the slightest. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what you've got against that.

excon

[speechlesstx]

As with Mayors Against "Illegal" Guns is after LEGAL guns, define "comprehensive." I have NO treason to trust liberals and their innocent sounding populist initiatives. They've proven they are out to violate my rights and micromanage my life, and that pi$$es me off. It would pi$$ off the Libertarian excon I used to know as well.

Thankfully Bloomy's true intentions are being exposed, and you're still dodging the point. Bloomberg and his ilk want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Do you?

[cdad]

What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?

[speechlesstx]

What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?

I believe they do want that Rorschach test, yes.

[excon]

Hello again,

Nothing has changed.. The comprehensive background check I have in mind, would check EVERYBODY who buy's a gun. That's it.

You ALREADY go through a background check, so have the buyers of guns from private sellers won't effect YOUR rights one iota. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns. I dunno what's WRONG with that.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I want details, not rhetoric. And I take it you're OK with Bloomy's goal since you won't respond.

[excon]

Hello again,

Bloomy doesn't run anything.. Who cares what he thinks?

excon

PS> Details? I thought it was self explanitory. If you sell a gun at a gun show, you must do through an FFL. If you do it on the internet or on craigs list, you must transact the business AT an FFL.. That way EVERYBODY, who buys a gun will be ELIGIBLE to buy a gun... Who doesn't want that?

[speechlesstx]

I don't care what he thinks, I care that he wants to violate my rights, don't you? You can't buy firearms on Craigslist by the way, or ebay.

[cdad]

ex, if you buy a gun over the internet it has to go through a FFL already. It is only private sales that bypass FFL requirements. If those are shipped to you then they still must go through a FFL regaurdless of being private sale or business.

[speechlesstx]

Did you hear the one about the "unsteady" anti-gun NY Governor's aide illegally carrying a loaded 9 mm Glock into government buildings and of all things, using the laser sight as a pointer during a presentation with foreign officials?

Jerome M. Hauer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's director of homeland security, took out his handgun and used the laser sighting device attached to the barrel as a pointer in a presentation to a foreign delegation, according to public officials. It happened Oct. 24 in Albany at the highly secure state emergency operations center below State Police headquarters.


These officials, one of whom claimed to be an eyewitness, said that three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun's laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point.

Hauer, commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, was disabled by a stroke a few years ago and can be unsteady. He isn't a law enforcement official. He carries the loaded 9-millimeter Glock in a holster into state buildings, an apparent violation of state law barring state employees from bringing weapons to the workplace, several witnesses say.

No worries though, he got a waiver 4 days after the report. I assume the Swedish officials recovered from the trauma of a perfect demonstration of not not to handle a firearm.

[talaniman]

Okay everything is peachy keen and we can't do anything about undiagnosed nuts and criminals until AFTER they break the law and shoot up a school of kids, then shoot themselves. If it happened at your school, or movie house where your kids are, what would you do Speech? Cdad?

[speechlesstx]

Perhaps if you guys started caring about the traditional family and life before it's born some of these things would resolve themselves.

[talaniman]

Wrong thread. Or are you tying religion, gay marriage, and abortion, to gun violence? This should be interesting.

[paraclete]

may as well blame someone tal, the NRA sure isn't taking responsibility. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people therefore people should be allowed to have guns so they can kill more people, following this logic people should also practice abortion and a gay lifestyle. Following these courses of action people should be extinct within a generation and there will be noone left to shout freedom, you won't take my freedom away

[speechlesstx]

Nope, right thread, but I'm not surprised you can't see a connection between your cheapening of human life and kids without a strong family not valuing life enough to avoid snuffing it out with a gun. And Clete, the NRA had always advocated responsible gun ownership, not using laser sights on a loaded gun as a pointing device for a PowerPoint presentation or pumping a few blasts from your shotgun off your balcony. Those are things liberals teach us while whitewashing the consequences.

[cdad]

Tal, I have learned to accept life as it comes at me. I would think I would handle in a manner that I already live by. I wouldnt go screaming in the halls to have everyones gun removed from them. I have seen how the law in action is used to take over our society. I have drawn my lines and Im not crossing over to liberal thinking when it comes to many issues. I still listen but I have to weigh that against what I have already learned and experienced. I will always be an advocate for second amendment rights. Isnt part of the liberal mantra choice? Then let this be mine. I dont want to see people hurt nor do many that advocate for the same issues I do. What you have to try to remember is that freedom isnt free. There is always a price to pay for it. Your choice in the making is how much it is worth to you?

[paraclete]

speech by responsibility I mean recognising that the problem is the availability of guns particularly high capacity semi automatic weapons