Federal judge rules against California gun advocates (no 2A right to open carry)

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/16/3631518/federal-judge-rules-against-calif.html

<snip>

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto, who says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a hidden gun.

Prieto was sued by advocates who say sheriffs, who issue most such permits, must give them to any applicants as long as they are not mentally ill, do not have a criminal background and complete a training course. Similar lawsuits were filed in Maryland, Massachusetts and New York.

In his ruling Monday, England said the Second Amendment "does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public."

<more>

:bounce:

the backlash cometh

yup

I guess the judge is an advocate of Open Carry.

Walt

Do you even bother to read any of this junk that you post?

Waaaahhhhh!111

yup

Not surprising.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WTH does "Waaaahhhhh" mean? What about 111?

Is "yup" some initials, a TLA (like young uninformed poster) or just some slang?

The reason they open carry is because concealed carry is illegal. They want cc and then they wont have to oc to be lawful. The poster is suggesting the judge is an advocate; its a joke.

This is the backlash

this is a fight the GOP/NRA will ultimately lose

yup

Yep, clearly the "backlash" is upon us!

yup

..ya see, the thing is that those laws were passed with something called "popular support." In fact, they were passed with a LOT of that in most cases. So yeah, good luck on repealing them all.

My advice is to go join an anti-firearm group with the strength to combat the NRA, if you can find one. Good luck. We've got a track record of 15 years of victory on our side, including two major supreme court cases. Within a year we will be down to a single state that doesn't allow concealed carry.

These laws will never be repealed. You know why? Because the body of data on CCW carriers is only going to continue to grow. We've got 15 years of data already in a few states, and as time goes on, this body of data is going to show what pro-firearm people have said forever:

CCW carriers are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

It's not going to be long at all and we are going to have decades of this data. And people will have to finally admit that the people we need to stop carrying firearms are people with criminal and mental health histories. They are the only people that matter. Preventing anyone else from carrying a firearm will do nothing.

the fact that CCW has swept the nation shows it is supported.

...it's all a GOP/NRA conspiracy. At least in jpak land it is..... :P

yup

That is just factually incorrect. Just about all the CCW laws that are on the books today came about WELL prior to the Presidents election. But hey, nice try though.

ALL other advance were made prior to 2008. YOU HAVE A MAJOR FAIL.

yup

First, a little over 32% of households claim to have a firearm in the house. Add in the folks who refuse to answer such questions and that number likely goes up to close to 40% if not more. Second, you can't offer any solid proof that all of the people who do not own a gun are anti CCW. You know why? Because no such proof exists outside of your own mind.

So whats next for you? Are you gonna start denying climate change and going on about how we didn't actually land on the Moon now?

yup yup yup

change the truth.

Please paste your VPC report so we can shred it like the garbage it is.

You are but a gullible pawn, and VPC strategy is transparent.

US firearms sales have increased EVERY YEAR since 2002.
2009 saw a 45% increase over 2008 numbers.

Current numbers based on the 2010 census, and YOUR claim would suggest there are approximately 98 million gun owners in the US.

Seeing as we only won the presidency popular vote by roughly 8.5 million votes, it would be real smart to piss off that "little" voting block!:sarcasm:

YUP, even if that number was cut by 66% we could easily lose in 2012.

Find something important to harangue people about.

Gun pollution is important to most of us.

Or have the help pick some up at the mall.

Where is the brady press release that came out with that one?

:rofl:

...about 85,000,000 of the 310,000,000 Americans own guns.

There are (very roughly) 600,000,000 firearms in private hands, worldwide. About a third of those are here in the US.

...hardly backlash at all. If THIS is the backlash, then it's laughable at best.

EDIT: And honestly, it's not all that misguided. The precedent has pretty much always been that concealed carry restrictions are a local matter and such restrictions are lawful even under the 2nd Amendment. But given how many shall issue type laws have been passed nation wide, it's only a matter of time until we no longer have to worry about such things as this.

K&R
This is not about OC. It is about hiding a gun on one's person and roaming around in public with a loaded weapon, supposedly on the off chance that it may be needed.

The chances of your getting shot by a person in Florida who has a concealed weapons permit is less than the chances of getting hit by lightning. (Assuming, of course, that you do not attack the permit holder in a violent manner.)

Do you walk down the street trying to figure out who is packing heat and tremble when you see a bulge - not sure if it's a cell phone or a pistol? If so, I admire your situational awareness but I fear you are overreacting.

Criminals will continue to illegally carry firearms concealed no matter what laws are passed for honest citizens and they are the people you need to be concerned about. You may actually be safer because some people do carry concealed and criminals can no longer view any person as a potential victim. They may decide to attack a victim that they are ABSOLUTELY certain is not carrying concealed and may avoid mugging you because you MIGHT be carrying.

the carrying of firearms is driven by fear? I could ask you the same question. Why are toters so afraid that they need to carry? That is what I consider overreacting. Some criminals may carry, probably a small minority. My carrying, something I have considered, would most likely not improve the situation and would more than likely exacerbate it. If they think I may be carrying, it might deter them, but it might also make them more likely to shoot first and take no chances, a situation we often see in liquor store robberies, because they assume the clerk may be armed.
My point is that you and I can argue possibilities and probabilities all day, but we're unlikely to prove our case, one way or the other.

tied together with your statement, "Where did I say I was afraid? Why do you assume someone who opposes the carrying of firearms is driven by fear?", brings up the fact that often in the Gungeon those who legally carry concealed are accused of being afraid of venturing outside their homes without a firearm.

When you are accused of fear you ask me why I assume you are afraid of those who carry concealed.

In reality neither you nor I live in fear. You have carefully considered carrying a firearm and for your well thought out reasons have decided against it. I thought long and hard before I decided to apply for a carry permit and I reached a different decision based on my experience, background and the situation at the time.

We could have far more productive discussions here in the Gungeon if we all stopped playing amateur psychologists and making conclusions about the motivations and emotions of other posters.

after we churn through the statistics, comparisons with other countries, constitutional law, history, linguingists, semantics, physics, engineering, sociology, industrial design, and anthropology anti RKBA advocates are invariably left with personal preference. It looks bad, it makes them nervious and they don't like it. I consider that a perfectly legitimate reason to not favor RKBA. I just don't think they should be able to legislate their personal preference.

We all make our decisions based on personal experience, regardless of 2A and how we interpret it. If you truly feel you need to carry to be safe then that is your choice, whether you do it legally or illegally. It's when and if you use it that the consequences come into play.

"If they think I may be carrying, it might deter them, but it might also make them more likely to shoot first and take no chances, a situation we often see in liquor store robberies, because they assume the clerk may be armed"

So you would have it that the criminals not have to worry about the clerk being armed so they wouldn't have to get out their guns and could do their jobs easier. What's next, unions for liquor store robbers?

"My carrying, something I have considered, would most likely not improve the situation and would more than likely exacerbate it."

WTF Can we not have a difference of opinion without ridiculous comments like that. I'm not trying to prove an unknown and you can't prove an unknown. Neither of us may be right.

You still going on about CC being 'dishonest'?

:rofl:

:shrug:

...it does have precedent on its side, going back to the 1800's even. I think California is just going to have to get rid of the May Issue law in general and replace it with a Shall Issue law that works more effectively.

In a long line of 9th Circus reversals.