'Staggering numbers': Early voting is breaking records in 2020

NOWHERE does it stipulate the term CONCEALED.

Your right to CARRY your precious firearms OPENLY is what the 2A protects.

 

Open carry is a crime in CA. My firearms are not precious, my family is. Just like politicians and their families who enjoy the luxury of armed security.

 

talk to Trump that lied to the people early on and played it down, they he shut down our economy and then went back to playing it down

Trump don't care about the debt, he doesn't pay taxes

 

Nope!

You can apply for a PERMIT to carry a firearm openly in CA and it WILL be granted providing you meet the stipulated requirements.

State's rights ALLOW for the REGULATION of carrying firearms.

 

And thus, as I said:
You do not oppose the substance, but the style.
That's rather shallow.
Why do you choose to be shallow?

 

It's completely relevant, given that you claimed Trump has no substance.
He did, after all, get the NATO allies to "pony up", as was his stated intent
How does that lack substance?

 

I doubt that will be the case.

 

"The ends justify the means" perfectly decribes virtually everythng Democrats do to get elected and push their policy.

 

A "right" does not require a "permit". and your claim it will be granted is false. "Shall issue" and "may issue" are the terms being argued. The 80+ cities that make up Los Angeles do not issue CCW or open carry permits to ordinary citizens.

Im a curious, would you support banning firearms for armored car security guards?

 

Imagine the screams from the left if some state required a woman to get a permit before she could have an abortion.

Rights do not emanate from the state and thus the state has no standing to issue a license for the exercise of same, much less require said license for its basic exercise.

 

Devil's advocate question: Any group that wants to hold a rally in a government run park, has to apply for a permit. Does that violate your 1st?

 

Good question. The government run park belongs to all of us and certain groups would just move in permanently if they could. They have to share and allow law enforcement to plan an appropriate level of presence. An individual should never be forced to get a permit or be confined to a "free speech zone".

 

Statements like that are why they created Tylenol....

 

Your right to demonstrate on public property is subject to time, place and manner restrictions necessary for the state to protect the safety of all involved, and may be restricted in accordance to same.
The law here is quite settled; said restrictions do not violate the 1st as you do not have an unfettered right to demonstrate on public property.

 

Mostly agree, but sidewalks are also public property. The question was about group rallies.

 

Well, right - it's all the same.
The permit can be required because the state needs to know when , where, and how long to make the proper safety arrangements.

 

The main point is that requiring a permit to exercise a right is not out of scope.

Our rights are disappearing. The 4th, my personal favorite, is almost non existent. No knock warrants leading to unnecessary deaths, no right to data privacy, FISA courts, NSA listening to phone calls. I find all this far more disturbing than someone being required to get a carry permit.

 

I agree with you and will always use those examples when people support the erosion of rights. In the case of our second amendment, the permit requirement has already lead to the compete loss of rights. When all is said and done, FISA, NSA, gun control etc, we are no safer.

 

Its not all the same. A group protest is one issue, an individual exercising their rights is another. It is too important of an issue to conflate the two.

 

Safety was never the reason for us to lose our 4th amendment rights. It's the last thing that had unwavering bi-partisan support. Patriot Act, my ass.

 

I agree. The same with gun control. Its about power. Believing that is is for our own good requires a profound level of gullibility.

 

the last 4 years have been like that, one tweet after another- lol

 

No where does it say a person needs to actually have a CCW, in order to 'bear arms', so trying to 'regulate' via a false premise of 'needing' a CCW is still an infringement.

 

You are right. Thats why we should never allow our rights to be taken away in nibbles. It starts with a permit, ands end with denying the permit.

 

So you believe that straight up, any citizen should be free to get a gun without any restrictions whatsoever? Blind people? 12 year olds? People with a history of violent behavior? Convicted armed robbers released on parole? People with a medically diagnosed condition, like schizophrenia?