Court tosses California's concealed-weapons rules

There are 20 comments on the Feb 13, 2014, Sacramento Bee Newspaper story titled Court tosses California's concealed-weapons rules. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California concealed-weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Monkey Girl Mouthpiece

Winter Park, FL

#1 Feb 13, 2014
.....HaHaHaHaHaHa! I thought California was the lefties last hope for gun control! HaHaHAHA! Looks like that's all over soon. The libs pushed too hard and the backlash begins. Just wait until the next election cycle. Hahahahahaha! Al Gore can tell you all whats about to happen. God this is sweet! HaHaHaHa
Tumbleweed

Gardnerville, NV

#2 Feb 13, 2014
Beware of corrupt Kalifornia Democrats!
Monkey Girl Mouthpiece

Winter Park, FL

#3 Feb 13, 2014
So when do the fat, lesbian police in sacremento come for our guns? You know, the confiscation everyone was talking about a year ago! When does it happen? HaHaHa! I'm waiting. ZzzzzzZzzzzz. That US Constitution is a real be-atch isn't it? HaHa....hard to talk your way around, "shall not be infringed". HaHaHaHaHa
Monkey Girl Mouthpiece

Winter Park, FL

#4 Feb 13, 2014
Now all the treasonous politicians are going to start back pedaling saying stuff like, "I was never in favor of any new laws that infringe on the voters rights to bear arms, oh no! Quite the contrary, I always supported the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Please don't fire me in November! Please! I made a little miscalculation that's all. I thought everyone wanted to live in a nanny state. Turns out only the people who are too lazy to vote want that. Please don't fire me. Please!!"
Bob the Man

Ocala, FL

#5 Feb 13, 2014
California has no choice but to allow ccw in every county. And that right quick. They have broken the law. They are already bankrupt and carry a terrific debt that puts them years into the hole financially. They are so scared of the NRA lawyers it makes me smile. I give you 2 months california to right this ship of fools or we come for your ass....a gaily you get 4 weeks.... I've changed my mind. Say, did you hear about the people that shot up that power station. A couple a guys with dear rifles cost you 40 million dollars. Wow. Watch the headlines.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6 Feb 14, 2014
They didn't toss all the CWP rules. Only the one that says it is up to some bureaucrat as to whether or not you get one. be prepared for a TON of new requirements in order to get a CWP in CA.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#8 Feb 14, 2014
This is just the start. All of this perverse sidestepping will force the courts to start ruling Constitutionally again. For their are far too many of us awake now. And the resistance to their treason is getting more resolved.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Means PRECISELY that which was originally written.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10 Feb 14, 2014
Armed Dong wrote:
<quoted text>
come to california and test your rights hillbilly...would love to see that instead of you flexing your sphincter hiding behind your monitor and whining all day to the topix moderators...
You obviously didn't pay attention to the ruling in Kalipornia, did you coward? There will soon be people carrying ALL OVER your perverse 'state'.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#12 Feb 14, 2014
Armed Dong wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, sure there will... and abortion will be illegal and marriage will be between a man and woman...anything else, re't'ard?....ooppppps... forgot ... jesus will be returning as a zombie...bwhahhahahahhahah
Not for long vile troll. You freaks pushed too hard, too fast. And now it is going to blow up in your treasonous faces.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#14 Feb 14, 2014
Armed Dong wrote:
<quoted text>
make sure it doesn't blow up in your re-c-tum.. don't want all the cr-ap on the walls....
It will be blowing up in the faces of you cowardly and vile treasonous LIEberal demonrats.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#16 Feb 14, 2014
Armed Dong wrote:
<quoted text>
blow it out your a$$
I leave a demokrap in the toilet daily.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#17 Feb 15, 2014
The second amendment was only incorporated to the states in 2010. California's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" in their bill of rights. With such a recent incorporation there is bound to be a lot more gun laws overturned in California. The scope of the 2nd amendment is vague and where it is vague it is at the states discretion to define legislation surrounding it. And seeing as firearm ownership has been codified for quite some time it will be many more court rulings and appeals of what is already on the books to make a substantial difference in gun policy here, This ruling really shouldn't come as a surprise since the incorporation and its silly to even suggest this is a liberal/conservative issue. California's constitution affords more liberties than any other and our republic is a beacon of freedom and equality and we aim to conserve the rights we have.
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#19 Feb 15, 2014
Nomos Soter wrote:
The second amendment was only incorporated to the states in 2010. California's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" in their bill of rights. With such a recent incorporation there is bound to be a lot more gun laws overturned in California. The scope of the 2nd amendment is vague and where it is vague it is at the states discretion to define legislation surrounding it. And seeing as firearm ownership has been codified for quite some time it will be many more court rulings and appeals of what is already on the books to make a substantial difference in gun policy here, This ruling really shouldn't come as a surprise since the incorporation and its silly to even suggest this is a liberal/conservative issue. California's constitution affords more liberties than any other and our republic is a beacon of freedom and equality and we aim to conserve the rights we have.
I believe the California 2A falls under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#20 Feb 15, 2014
Nomos Soter wrote:
The second amendment was only incorporated to the states in 2010. California's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" in their bill of rights. With such a recent incorporation there is bound to be a lot more gun laws overturned in California. The scope of the 2nd amendment is vague and where it is vague it is at the states discretion to define legislation surrounding it. And seeing as firearm ownership has been codified for quite some time it will be many more court rulings and appeals of what is already on the books to make a substantial difference in gun policy here, This ruling really shouldn't come as a surprise since the incorporation and its silly to even suggest this is a liberal/conservative issue. California's constitution affords more liberties than any other and our republic is a beacon of freedom and equality and we aim to conserve the rights we have.
1. Kalipornia is bankrupt and beyond repair.

2. The 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" in 1791. And isn't "vague" at all.

3. ALL of our SERVANTS in government were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

4. Pieces of paper don't "afford liberties", God does.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#21 Feb 15, 2014
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the California 2A falls under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.]

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

Article. VI.

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in EVERY State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of ANY State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#22 Feb 15, 2014
Get Out wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the California 2A falls under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
No it falls under the right to bear arms clause of the 2nd. It is because of the 14th Amendment that the bill of rights started incorporating to the states. The federal constitution prior to the passage of the 14th amendment only applied to the federal government. Otherwise the people were only afforded rights and protection if their states constitution specified it, its taken almost 100 years for the bill of rights to get decided by the supreme court as to incorporate them to the states as well. Some rights were decided they wouldn't be like indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury in civil cases, a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred and excessive fines. Up until 2010 the 2nd was up to the states authority.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#23 Feb 15, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
.You understand Topix may, at any time, in its sole discretion, determine what user activity constitutes "spamming." and that Topix reserves the right to employ any means and methods of technology, including, but not limited to rate limiting, content filters, and captchas to prevent automated posting of duplicate content. Any attempt to reverse engineer, bypass, or publicize these systems is similarly prohibited.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#24 Feb 15, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Kalipornia is bankrupt and beyond repair.
2. The 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" in 1791. And isn't "vague" at all.
3. ALL of our SERVANTS in government were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
4. Pieces of paper don't "afford liberties", God does.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Servants of the federal government yes. States are not congress, they are not federal judges and history and Justices of the Supreme court would prove you wrong otherwise California wouldn't have just tossed out their concealed weapons rules as it now CURRENTLY violates the 2nd amendment. You do understand what a federation of states is right? What a Republic is? You do know each state is sovereign, has it's own laws and constitution and yet bound to the Republic by a federal constitution and government. That's why states have their own governments, they have state senates, state legislatures, governors, and superior courts. Each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#25 Feb 15, 2014
Nomos Soter wrote:
<quoted text>
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
Servants of the federal government yes. States are not congress, they are not federal judges and history and Justices of the Supreme court would prove you wrong otherwise California wouldn't have just tossed out their concealed weapons rules as it now CURRENTLY violates the 2nd amendment. You do understand what a federation of states is right? What a Republic is? You do know each state is sovereign, has it's own laws and constitution and yet bound to the Republic by a federal constitution and government. That's why states have their own governments, they have state senates, state legislatures, governors, and superior courts. Each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.
I've already CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVEN your vain argument to be PURE BS.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#26 Feb 15, 2014
Nomos Soter wrote:
<quoted text>
No it falls under the right to bear arms clause of the 2nd. It is because of the 14th Amendment that the bill of rights started incorporating to the states. The federal constitution prior to the passage of the 14th amendment only applied to the federal government. Otherwise the people were only afforded rights and protection if their states constitution specified it, its taken almost 100 years for the bill of rights to get decided by the supreme court as to incorporate them to the states as well. Some rights were decided they wouldn't be like indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury in civil cases, a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred and excessive fines. Up until 2010 the 2nd was up to the states authority.
LIAR:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Stop spreading the LIEberal demonrat LIE.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sheriff, lawyer dispute whether 73-year-old dep... 8 hr Truth and Facts 45
Democrats: Get A $2,000 Tax Credit For Turning ... Apr 20 Truth and Facts 13
Kahr CW40 PROBLEM (Dec '08) Apr 17 OlFed 48
News Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) Apr 15 AMERICA 12,178
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Apr 13 swedenforever 112
News Who's calling the shots in Canada? Apr 10 Truth and Facts 2
Suspect in Arizona Shooting Spree a White Supre... Apr 5 Truth and Facts 82
More from around the web