CA Ninth Circuit Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

YES!!!!!

Finally, equality for all California citizens, not just for the "rich and famous".

It's about damn time there is some sanity coming out of California.

Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

 

Holy Crap! If true.... I'm going for this one.

Did these Liberal wonks bump their heads?

 

Stupid law for stupid reasons for scare people!

 

Perhaps you shouldn't use that word, "stupid".

For it's for not for such a good word for you to for use. For sure?

 

This is fascinating, considering how California doesn't recognize a citizen's right to bear arms.

 

This is a very surprising decision from a court that normally just makes up Constitutional law. Of course, I expect the State to obey as much as I expected DC to obey Heller, not al all.

 

The 9th circuit court once again shows itself to be the most sensible in the nation.

 

"The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue."

Maybe this is why the usually liberal leaning 9th Court decided to vote the way they did. They want the Supreme Court to take this issue up.

 

While I completely agree with the decision, I fully expect our conservative friends who (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about the same court striking down other bans, such as same sex marriage, to be as equally outraged with the court for overturning the explicit will of the people.

That is if they didn't wish to be hypocrites, lol

 

Where are all the Rightwingers who should be screaming about "activist judges"?

 

Overriding the will of the people is perfectly OK when the people are wrong. Duh!

 

If SCOTUS agrees with the 9th Appelate court, will all May-Issue laws around the country have to be loosened?

 

This was only a 3 judge panel. Somehow the 9th Circuit allowed the only 2 more conservative leaning judges to be on the same panel at the same time. I could see the whole 9th Circuit taking it up and denying it.

I hope it remains and I will immediately go apply and get a nice compact. I just don't trust anything good to come out of California's government or judicial system.

 

Why? It's not like the judge did anything other than recognize what is actually enumerated in the Constitution.

 

Why should they? There was nothing "activist" about this decision.

 

Just like with overturning same sex marriage bans.

 

"marriage" is not a right.

The "right to bear arms" is.

 

The Supreme Court said it is.

Again, like marriage, the Supreme Court also said it is.

You've perfectly demonstrated the hypocrisy of the right wing fringe.

 

marriage might be a right but it is as susceptible to regulation as guns....The only real question appears to be what regulations are PC enough for the court...

 

The court was hearing a case involving interracial marriage when it said that. Not gay marriage which has had to redefine marriage itself in order to contort itself in court.

The idea of men marrying other men was the punch line to a nasty joke in the time of Loving v. Virginia.

 

irrelevant. they made no distinction. marriage is a right, and as such is subject to the 14th amendments equal protection clause, which precludes discrimination based on gender.

- - - Updated - - -

it's not about PC, it's about the 14th amendments equal protection. bans on same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment, which is why they keep getting struck down.

 

The 14th amendment did not equalize perversion under the law but instead insured that what was legal and accepted be treated equally. Marriage is a matter for the states. Using your rationale there is also a protection to polygamy, incest and perhaps any other relationship a loud minority desires to legitimize.

 

Most likely because their was no distinction to be made when discussing marriage...which has always been well understood to be between one man and one woman.
If there is a "right" to marry, as you claim, then the polygamists that you so abhor have just as much right to marriage as does Fred and Barney.

I'd like to point out one more time that gender discrimination is not possible in a one man/one woman paradigm.

 

Red herring....but No, it is nothing like that at all. There is nothing enumerated n the Constitution about marriage. This thread is about the law and concealed weapons.

 

14th amendment.