CA Ninth Circuit Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MolonLabe2009, Feb 13, 2014.

  1. SteveJa

    SteveJa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Am I dreaming right now? CA wants to uphold the constitution and the rights of its people? Wow CA can surprise me still
     
  2. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    16,240
    Likes Received:
    7,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the 14th amendment doesn't define marriage
     
  3. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It precludes discrimination based on gender. Tommie can marry Michelle, but not Michael, because Michael is the wrong gender. Constitution doesn't allow the restriction.
     
  4. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    16,240
    Likes Received:
    7,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    positions and titles in life sometimes come with prerequisites before being allowed to hold that position or title
    for example am I allowed to say im an American Indian to gain the benefits of being one? no im not, because those benefits was so only American Indians can receive those benefits . is that discrimination to all others?
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has nothing to do with my post.
     
  6. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Someday, and I hope I'm alive to see it, you may come up with an appropriate response to this point without completely ducking and running away from it.
     
  7. nom de plume

    nom de plume New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama's federal Supreme Court will not allow it to stand.
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no intention or obligation to respond to non sequiturs or red herrings.
     
  9. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. Especially the ones that present thorny logic based questions you have no hope of answering.
     
  10. Iron River

    Iron River New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    7,052
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was this law approved by the people as was the homo marriage ban?

    The difference is that these judges wanted to marry a family member but they don't want to go to a family get to gather unarmed.
     
  11. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are non sequiturs and red herrings. You don't have an actual argument so you're forced to ramble about off topic fallacies. Come back when you can formulate an intelligent argument that is t full of fallacies,
     
  12. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL......
     
  13. 1wiseguy

    1wiseguy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has nothing in it about marriage.
     
  14. 1wiseguy

    1wiseguy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
     
  15. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Seriously people. This thread has a subject and a title. Please keep this pathetic garbage about perverted partnership in threads that pertain to it.
    There is a serious caveat in this Queerlyfornia approval of CCW. Another new law sez that your new handguns have to have the ability to microstamp the cartridge cases. That's why Ruger and S&W will no longer sell new hand guns in that state. I wonder if the CCW law will allow used guns that don't have that feature?
     
  16. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that the existing law provides for "shall issue" carry permits, it is obviously discriminatory and open to abuse. At most, the court struck down only that part of the law. Jurisdictions must now treat all applicants equally. Blue collar or blue blood, you got to meet the same criterion for a license.
     
  17. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    equal protection clause.

    - - - Updated - - -

    of course it does. follow the line of discussion.
     
  18. 1wiseguy

    1wiseguy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't apply because you Tommie can marry, your Michelle can marry and your Michale can marry. There is no discrimination.



    The topic is the 9th circuit court decision in support of a right enumerated in the Constitution--- your red herring has no such standing.
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    60,486
    Likes Received:
    6,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    of course it applies. Tommie can marry michelle, but not Michael, because Michael is the wrong gender. every court that has heard the case in the past 5 years agrees with me.



    it's a direct comparison, not a red herring. And I am enjoying pointing out the hypocrisy of you folks on the right who whine about judicial activism and "overturning the will of the people" in regards to same sex marriage, but are perfectly fine with this identical situation.
     
  20. 1wiseguy

    1wiseguy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,494
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nothing can be further from the truth and the topic of this thread. If you want to have a discussion of judicial activism, feel free to start one. I'll not bother to destroy your red herring topic in this thread.
     
  21. Black Monarch

    Black Monarch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the record, the court didn't actually overturn the requirement for "just cause". It merely expanded the definition of "just cause" to include "because I want one, dammit"
     
  22. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,405
    Likes Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is simply a triumph of political correctness over law....Its like Roe. It takes behavior that was abhorrent at the time the amendment was written and pretends protecting the abhorrent behavior is what the drafters had in mind...
     

Share This Page