Peruta v. California - Shooters Forum
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > General > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Like Tree15Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2017, 10:22 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,124
Peruta v. California


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Something to be hopeful about now the the SCOTUS is back up to full snort.

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court | Fox News
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-15-2017, 10:36 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,227
It kills me that California who won't allow open carry is wanting to ban concealed carry. They are already in defiance of the second. To say the second makes no provision for CC is ludicrous. Should be no need to define the type of carry if citizens are granted the right in the constitution!

Well mini rant over....
Cheezywan, tunnels and Trent12 like this.
__________________
Still Learnin' as I go!

NRA Endowment Member
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-15-2017, 11:04 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,834
Bear with me a moment as I Review a Possible future California Scenario:

California Current;y Bans 'Open Carry' of a Firearm outside one's Domicile.
California is Effectively Banning 'Concealed Carry' of a firearm outside one's domicile.
Transporting a Firearm In California REQUIRES it be 'Concealed' in some form of Opaque Container when outside one's Domicile.

Therefore, under California Logic, ANY Transport of a Firearm outside one's Domicile is a Violation of California Law(s).
Such a Violation subjects the 'transgressing citizen to Immediate Arrest, Confiscation of ALL Firearms and Accouterments, Loss of Constitutional Rights, and Felony Charges.

The Average Law Abiding Citizens appear to have NO Legal path to Transport Firearms outside Their Domicile(s) for any Lawful Reason.

SCARY to ME!

Best Regards,
Chev. William
Lever30 likes this.
Reply With Quote
 
  #4  
Old 05-15-2017, 11:10 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,124
Wondering chevwilliam, are opaque containers illegal?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:02 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevwilliam View Post
Bear with me a moment as I Review a Possible future California Scenario:

California Current;y Bans 'Open Carry' of a Firearm outside one's Domicile.
California is Effectively Banning 'Concealed Carry' of a firearm outside one's domicile.
Transporting a Firearm In California REQUIRES it be 'Concealed' in some form of Opaque Container when outside one's Domicile.

Therefore, under California Logic, ANY Transport of a Firearm outside one's Domicile is a Violation of California Law(s).
Such a Violation subjects the 'transgressing citizen to Immediate Arrest, Confiscation of ALL Firearms and Accouterments, Loss of Constitutional Rights, and Felony Charges.

The Average Law Abiding Citizens appear to have NO Legal path to Transport Firearms outside Their Domicile(s) for any Lawful Reason.

SCARY to ME!

Best Regards,
Chev. William
I see you live in CA. How do you transport firearms? Do they make provision for hunting, target practice and matches?
__________________
Still Learnin' as I go!

NRA Endowment Member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:34 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,834
Personally, I use Old 'Side hinge' WW2 50 Cal Ammo cans fitted with Locks to Carry disassembled Revolvers with Locks fitted to Prevent quick reassembly. Rifles are in Locked Cases with Locks on er or Action Locks on them in the cases. Ammunition is Carried separately in another Locking Ammo box. All Are Stored in the Vehicle outside the Passenger Compartment in a Locked area.
I have not lately taken a Semi-Auto pistol out for transport so probably I would disassemble it and put a Lock through the Mag. well, as well as a Trigger Lock, on it and put in in a Locked Ammo can.

This is All because of Overlapping Restrictions by State, County, and City Governments here.
I am a Retired Disabled Veteran and I Value my Civil rights enough not to "Test My Luck" unnecessarily.

Most Range outings now are Mostly Development of my .25ACP and .25 Cal. Mildcats in a single action custom revolver.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:02 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE New Mexico
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheezywan View Post
Wondering chevwilliam, are opaque containers illegal?
No? But they may cause cancer in the state of california

Like everything else does.

This just in. Thinking causes cancer. We need you all to take these pills to keep you from thinking! That way nobody will get cancer from thinking!

On a serious note. My new rifle scope had a warning sticker on it stating that materials used in the construction of this optical device are believed to cause cancer in the state of California...

Last edited by Trent12; 05-15-2017 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:10 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,227
[QUOTE=On a serious note. My new rifle scope had a warning sticker on it stating that materials used in the construction of this optical device are believed to cause cancer in the state of California...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but you probably have to eat 50 of them a day for 100 years!
Trent12 likes this.
__________________
Still Learnin' as I go!

NRA Endowment Member
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:16 PM
Okie Hog's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southwestern, OK
Posts: 183
Peruta has been at SCOTUS since early March. Today SCOTUS kicked the Peruta can down the road again. From SCOTUS Blog:

Quote:
May 15 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017
BTW: After their decisions in Heller and McDonald and with Scalia on the court SCOTUS failed to hear several Second Amendment cases.
Cheezywan likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:21 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Denver, Colorado Territory
Posts: 154
"This is All because of Overlapping Restrictions by State, County, and City Governments here.
I am a Retired Disabled Veteran and I Value my Civil rights enough not to "Test My Luck" unnecessarily."

Just what civil rights do you have? Doesn't sound like much to me.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:26 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Remote Idaho
Posts: 7,659
YET, just yesterday some thug with a BB gun tried to rob a store in California and got shot in the chest with a real gun for his trouble. The news story made it a point to say the clerk's gun was 'legally owned and carried'. Idiots!
__________________
There is no safe direction to point an unsafe gun.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2017, 08:36 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 868
This pettifogger is either a liar, moron, or he's hunting up an agenda:

“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

Apparently Chemerinsky hasn't read James Madison's The Federalist No. 46. How does this pettifogger think our Founding Fathers carried their handguns? This pettifogger is hustling his unconstitutional agenda as fact. While I don't know this pettifogger, my money's on his being progeny of a pair of Stalin's Travelers who've transformed themselves into Leo Stauss & Irvine Kristol's neoconservatives. Neocons are worse than liberals, for they're erstwhile liberals who've co-opted the Republican Party and morphed it in to the Party of Democratic Light.

You gotta be careful of what you wish for, because you might just get it. This is case could eviscerate the Second Amendment.

Not all lawyers are of equal ability. If a halfwit is taking this case to the Supreme Court, we'll probably lose. We'll need an accomplished con law lawyer to argue this case. It's not about gun rights. It's about constitutional rights.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the Brady Bunch wants this case as much if not more than we do. The Brady Bunch has ben waiting for opportunity to take a Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court because if it wins, our guns will be confiscated the following day. It's been waiting for a court opportunity to destroy our Second Amendment. If the Brady Bunch wins, our guns will be confiscated the following day. And you can bet your last bullet that the Brady Bunch has the best con law lawyer laundered money could buy.

There is more at stake here than the Second Amendment. Our individual liberty is at stake. The Second Amendment describes an inalienable right that cannot be infringed. Madison's choice of prose leaves no room for doubt about his meaning. So how can any court justify jurisdiction to hear a Second Amendment case? No court can. And therein lies the snake's deadly venom.

Only congress can create law. No court in our country can create law. Courts lack constitutional authority to create law. No law is valid that contradicts the constitution. Hence, any law that infringes upon the Second Amendment is invalid. The only legal way to infringe upon Second Amendment is consistent with Article V of the US Constitution. There is no other legal means to infringe upon our right to keep and BEAR arms.

We know that only congress can create law. Before I get much further, let's clarify a widely believed misconception (lie): our Founding Fathers created three branches of government, not three equal branches of government. Article III was intended to be the weakest branch of government. So why has it become the de facto most powerful branch of government? Because it insulates our elected representatives from reproach. They can point to the unelected court, an illegitimated cartel that's not responsible to We, the People, for causal of unpopular decisions that are illegitimately accepted as law.

I believe that Samuel Chase was the only supreme court justice to be impeached. The last district court judge to be impeached was in the 1970's. Does the federal court system really want us to believe that judges are of such high moral character that not a one was subject to or oughta be impeachment/impeached?

The reality is Lyin' Ryan ought to have initiated impeachment proceedings against judges who have unlawfully interfered with President Trump's Article II executive prerogatives. So why has Lyin' Ryan protected judges who have acted illegally? Because Lyin' Ryan is one of them: he's a neocon. He's a soldier in America's Fifth Column. All neocons are soldiers in America's Fifth Column. Charles Krauthammer is commander-in-chief of America's Fifth Column.

We're deceiving ourselves by asserting that we're governed. We're ruled. We haven't been governed since the Creature from Jekyll Island seized control of the government of the United States of America. "...land of the free..." has become a cruel joke. We're the 20th most free country in the world. We ought be the most free.

The US Supreme Court has become our oligarchy. It's controlled by America's ruling class, or ruling elite, or shadow government, or deep state: they're all synonymous. Our oligarchy is controlled by our plutocracy, or ruling elite. Our ruling elite determines what the unwashed masses (us) is to receive or enjoy.

President Trump was feared by Democrats and the neocon controlled Republican Party. He wasn't supposed to win. He's not a member of America's Blue Bloods. He's not in the club of America's ruling elite. Even more scary, he can expose rampant theft and graft of America's ruling elite. For instance, President Trump told Boeing he wasn't buying a copy of Air Force 1 for 4 billion taxpayers' bucks. Boeing has agreed to shave 800 mil off the price. President Trump said no deal. Get the price lower or it can keep the plane. Now the real question is whose pockets were supposed to be lined with the 800+ mil premium? Yep, it was supposed to be laundered into pockets of America's ruling elite for which taxpayers would have been hooked for repayment.

I didn't leave the Republican Party. Neocons kicked me outta it. Neocons are worse than liberals.

President Trump has scared the holy heck outta liberals and neocons. That's one of the reasons I was aboard the Trump Train the second he declared his candidacy. I think that he'll become a better president than was Reagan. It might just be that he'll rank with President Washington. He's THE blue collar billionaire who loves our country, our Second Amendment, and American workers.

The Supreme Court does not mete out justice. It metes out political agenda, which is why political affiliation is conditional of appointment. If law were fair, objective, and based upon an identified need, political affiliation wouldn't matter. But since our court has assumed duties enumerated in Article I, it creates law. In essence, agendas of the Supreme Court become the supreme law of the land, not the US Constitution. And that, my fellow Americans, is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

This is why you have to be careful of that for which you wish. Remember that not all lawyers are of equal ability. If a pettifogger is taking this case for self-enrichment, we could very well lose our Second Amendment. We need the best con law lawyer to represent us (Mark Levin is a neocon fraud). You can bet your last bullet that the Brady Bunch will be represented by the best con law lawyer laundered money can buy (read: Soros).

Please do not lose sight that were our constitution the supreme law of the land, there'd be no challenges to the Second Amendment. What part of "...shall not be infringed..." causes neocons and liberals trouble?

There was a very good reason Thomas Jefferson didn't trust judges/justices.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..."
---James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

Source: The Federalist #46
Trent12 and Timc like this.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-16-2017, 09:47 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,124
You seem to have some distrust of legal professionals, and that is fine by me. I suppose I do as well to a degree.
I admire your passion on the subject. I agree (I think) that it is stupid that our SCOTUS should even be bothered by this sort of crap. But they do! And we have to pay for it too!

Sure is good that we get to participate on this board and vent a little here and there.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-16-2017, 11:03 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershot View Post
"This is All because of Overlapping Restrictions by State, County, and City Governments here.
I am a Retired Disabled Veteran and I Value my Civil rights enough not to "Test My Luck" unnecessarily."

Just what civil rights do you have? Doesn't sound like much to me.
1. Life.
2. Liberty.
3. Pursuit of Happiness.
4. Freedom of Speech.
5. Freedom of religion.
6. Possession of Firearms.
7. Employment in "Positions of Trust".
8. The Citizen's Right of the VOTE!
9. Being Opinionated in My "Advanced Age".

and a few more.

Chev. William

Last edited by chevwilliam; 05-16-2017 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-16-2017, 02:22 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: SW Florida- Arcadia area
Posts: 678
[QUOTE“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes.”][/QUOTE]

Absolute right? Please define that. A right is a right is a right. No two ways about it.
Our founding fathers most of the time (except when in war zones) carried a pistol inside their waistcoat. They saw the need to protect themselves and those around them, but without flaunting a pistol which might alarm the ladies.
__________________
TimC
My goal is not to be better than others, but to be better than I used to be.

On this ride called Life, you have to take the good with the bad. Always forgive. A few things you'll forget, but learn from your mistakes and never regret. People can change and things can go wrong, but just remember, the ride's gonna go on. Cowboy Wisdom
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-16-2017, 03:52 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyF View Post
Yeah, but you probably have to eat 50 of them a day for 100 years!
Well, they only cause cancer in California so eat all you want.
__________________
BearBear

__________________________________________________ _____

In theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, they are not.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-16-2017, 03:58 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timc View Post
[QUOTE“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes.”]
"Absolute right? Please define that. A right is a right is a right. No two ways about it."

No right is absolute. Despite the 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theater or slander someone. You can't sacrifice virgins as part of your religious service or smoke peyote. Despite the Second Amendment, you can't own an M-1 tank. It takes reasonable people to draw reasonable boundaries and so we need to appoint reasonable judges who are going to make the decisions where the rubber meets the road.
Okie Hog likes this.
__________________
BearBear

__________________________________________________ _____

In theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, they are not.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:05 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 868
Hi Cheezywan,

I'm passionate about our natural rights (they flow to us from God), our blessed constitution, the Big of Rights, our blessed Second Amendment, and our individual liberties which have wilted on the tree of liberty.

Make no mistake: lawyers are causal of legal chicanery that has given the illusion of legitimacy to their ridiculous allegations (the Second Amendment isn't an absolute right). The second a lawyer files a case that is a clear violation of Article II, he oughta be disbarred. Any judge that asserts jurisdiction oughta be impeached.

I've worked in a fact-based profession for 20 years. I've known God only knows how many lawyers. I've known a lot of judges. Trust me, law school does not teach knowledge. It teaches revised legal theories; e.g., the Chicago Theory of Economic Justice which is wholly devoid of morality. Our country and constitution were created upon Christian morality. Judges don't have to be bright. They merely have to dupe enough voters to win election, or they're owed a political favor, or they're connected. Ability has little to do with a judge or justice taking a seat at a bench when he's not qualified for a seat on southbound bus.

The US Supreme Court has become the dominant cartel that will determine what rights that we, the unwashed masses, will enjoy.

I've attended college before political correctness seized control of colleges and universities. We were taught early American history as it occurred. We had to study primary source documents.

The only country in the world that can defeat the USA is the USA. If it's defeated, it'll be intended to be defeated. Our Supreme Court, which does the bidding of our ruling elite, will be the cartel that enslaves us. Whether the executive branch recognizes unjust decisions could be the linchpin necessary to enslave us. It won't be President Trump.

The only way to infringe upon our Second Amendment RIGHT is via Article V. Why have we bought in to the stupidity that our rights can be infringed without following our constitution?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-16-2017, 04:51 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansSouci View Post
Hi Cheezywan,



Make no mistake: lawyers are causal of legal chicanery that has given the illusion of legitimacy to their ridiculous allegations (the Second Amendment isn't an absolute right). The second a lawyer files a case that is a clear violation of Article II, he oughta be disbarred. Any judge that asserts jurisdiction oughta be impeached.

I agree that the rights we have are God given and the Constitution merely prevents the government from infringing on those God-given rights. But even God-given rights are not absolute. One's right to life and liberty may be forfeited if one murders or commits another crime. The right to bear arms, if absolute, would allow you to purchase a nuclear bomb if you had enough money. While I might trust you with a nuke, I may not trust your terrorist neighbor who would be protected by the Second Amendment to own one it the right were truly absolute. So, again, it is the reasonable bounds of the right.
__________________
BearBear

__________________________________________________ _____

In theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, they are not.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-16-2017, 07:33 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 868
BearBear,

You're rationalizing infringing upon our rights. One's right to life is absolute unless he forfeits it by committing capital murder.

Your nuclear thing that you have going on is classic extremism. You've tried to invalidate my post by resorting to extremism in prayer your logical fallacy would imply to my post. It doesn't fly that way, Oroville. We're talking constitutional rights that shall not be infringed unless one forfeits them by committing crimes, which would be beyond the realm of this discussion.

We have been duped in to believing that government can determine which rights we have. It can't. Government is powerless to interfere with God's will. James Madison knew this to be true. he believe that the Bill of rights was unnecessary because he created a limited government that was powerless to interfere with rights that flow to us from God, which was a fundamental tenet of John Locke. Anti-Federalists refused to ratify our constitution unless it included enumerated rights. They relied upon the Christian Bible for justification for wanting our rights memorialized in writing. Our Founding Fathers could read the word of God in the Christian Bible. They wanted to read our inalienable rights in our constitution.

"Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court Asked To Hear Peruta v. California AllOutdoor.com All Outdoor 1 04-26-2017 08:41 AM
ArmaLite Introduces California Compliant AR-15 Rifle ~kev~ Black Rifles 16 01-22-2017 12:40 PM
A Repor tof a Ruling in Favor of Second Amendment in California. chevwilliam General Discussion 24 11-30-2014 09:01 AM
California dreaming? byrl General Discussion 33 07-22-2014 11:28 PM
Lawsuit to Overturn California AB962 Filed – State Ammunition Inc. MosinMan General Discussion 4 07-03-2010 07:38 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive - Privacy Statement >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
Privacy Statement | Contact Webmaster
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1