9th Circuit strikes down California CCW laws (2/21 San Diego will not appeal)

[LTC8K6]

Well, you can carry your microstamped pistols now...

 

[OCGuy]

That would be great if it actually happens. I am still waiting for the CA Assault Weapon to get over turned but I am not holding my breath on that one.

CA has no "assault weapon" ban. I have multiple rifles within feet of me.

Now, they have to meet certain "feature" guidelines, like have a bullet button, but they are still rifles.

 

[Brovane]

CA has no "assault weapon" ban. I have multiple rifles within feet of me.

Now, they have to meet certain "feature" guidelines, like have a bullet button, but they are still rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

This is annoying enough for me. You cannot have a lot of the cool features on rifles that you used to be able to have.

 

[werepossum]

Cool. Seems like I never agree with the Ninth Circus, so it pleases me to see otherwise.

 

[LunarRay]

I don't own guns but I think guns of any kind ought to be own-able by citizens who have not or do not constitute a clear and present danger to society... what ever that should be defined as, I don't know.
To carry a weapon concealed is a bit testy... I've a son who is a cop so I've some bias but still think a reasonable and prudent person ought to have the right to bear arms in what ever manner they find comfortable.
Where and when I grew up it was fear that caused folks to prepare to defend themselves and I suppose among the gangs it was similar. I apparently don't have the need to own a weapon so I'll abstain from denying that Right to another but will put them in jail if they abuse the Right to the detriment of another... often too late to remedy, but, that is part of the price of Freedom, I suppose.

 

[werepossum]

I don't own guns but I think guns of any kind ought to be own-able by citizens who have not or do not constitute a clear and present danger to society... what ever that should be defined as, I don't know.
To carry a weapon concealed is a bit testy... I've a son who is a cop so I've some bias but still think a reasonable and prudent person ought to have the right to bear arms in what ever manner they find comfortable.
Where and when I grew up it was fear that caused folks to prepare to defend themselves and I suppose among the gangs it was similar. I apparently don't have the need to own a weapon so I'll abstain from denying that Right to another but will put them in jail if they abuse the Right to the detriment of another... often too late to remedy, but, that is part of the price of Freedom, I suppose.

Agreed, although I can understand the additional scrutiny (and cost) for things like automatic weapons and silencers and fifty cals.

 

[Doppel]

I don't own guns but I think guns of any kind ought to be own-able by citizens who have not or do not constitute a clear and present danger to society... what ever that should be defined as, I don't know.
To carry a weapon concealed is a bit testy... I've a son who is a cop so I've some bias but still think a reasonable and prudent person ought to have the right to bear arms in what ever manner they find comfortable.
Where and when I grew up it was fear that caused folks to prepare to defend themselves and I suppose among the gangs it was similar. I apparently don't have the need to own a weapon so I'll abstain from denying that Right to another but will put them in jail if they abuse the Right to the detriment of another... often too late to remedy, but, that is part of the price of Freedom, I suppose.

:thumbsup:

The notion that a person's desire to protect themselves, alone, is not sufficient to be granted the tool to do it is quite offensive. I think it's a great ruling. I hope SCOTUS addresses this finally. I read much of the ruling and it is compelling.

 

[LunarRay]

:thumbsup:

The notion that a person's desire to protect themselves, alone, is not sufficient to be granted the tool to do it is quite offensive. I think it's a great ruling. I hope SCOTUS addresses this finally. I read much of the ruling and it is compelling.

The bias I mentioned is not founded in the notion that cops will react differently than now... they always assume a weapon is present when they confront a situation. The bias I have IS founded in the notion that some folks but for the concealed weapon MIGHT react in a manner that can get them shot... There ought to be training for these CCW holders that is reinforced... say... yearly or so.
I can imagine a drunk person reaching for a weapon in a non confrontational manner but to the cop it is a threat... Or a road rage type affair ending with someone waving their gun at the offending driver... Things like that seem a real possibility. But, even so... I suppose it is for the holder of the CCW permit to take responsibility for their actions and not be an idiot.

I agree in principle with the decision. I live in San Diego County and wonder what is the underlying basis... the unsaid bit...
Change the Constitution or redefine the three tiers of scrutiny [not going to happen] so it becomes Nationally Universal which is a SCOTUS job.

For me there is no difference tween the 2nd Amendment Rights and any other Right. I, therefore, stand with the clear unambiguous wording found in the Constitution and the implied wording of all the other Rights we have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Agreed, although I can understand the additional scrutiny (and cost) for things like automatic weapons and silencers and fifty cals.

If everybody has a gun, I want a tank. My life is way more important that other people's lives and I am completely trustworthy. Had I a tank, I would have gone on a killing rage only a few times in my life. And I want to be God Damned ready when you do.

 

[Incorruptible]

This is good news and hopefully many other restrictive laws are struck down as well, this is a big screw you to the gun control supporters.

 

[Doppel]

Agreed, although I can understand the additional scrutiny (and cost) for things like automatic weapons and silencers and fifty cals.

But if the goal is to ensure a crazy person can't kill too many people before he's taken out, there's really no need to spend much time on such exotic weapons. A 50 cal of most variants (all?) is unfit for a massacre. A machine gun could be, but simple automatic rifles are barely more lethal than another (I understand soldiers regularly don't bother using the rapid fire). Silencers make crimes easier in some ways, but they make concealing a weapon harder. They could make people living near gun ranges less annoyed if they were allowed.

There ought to be training for these CCW holders that is reinforced... say... yearly or so.

Certainly being untrained and given a pistol to carry around is a really silly idea, but to require training the danger (and you know this will happen) is that the training becomes more stringent over time; gun-grabbers would use it as a way to disarm people with increasingly difficult requirements to be met.

 

[fskimospy]

But if the goal is to ensure a crazy person can't kill too many people before he's taken out, there's really no need to spend much time on such exotic weapons. A 50 cal of most variants (all?) is unfit for a massacre. A machine gun could be, but simple automatic rifles are barely more lethal than another (I understand soldiers regularly don't bother using the rapid fire). Silencers make crimes easier in some ways, but they make concealing a weapon harder. They could make people living near gun ranges less annoyed if they were allowed.Certainly being untrained and given a pistol to carry around is a really silly idea, but to require training the danger (and you know this will happen) is that the training becomes more stringent over time; gun-grabbers would use it as a way to disarm people with increasingly difficult requirements to be met.

Silencers really don't make committing crimes much easier. The silencer effect you see in the movies GROSSLY overestimates their effectiveness. Pretty much they take a gunshot that is incredibly loud and make it only really really loud.

 

[who?]

Since one well placed bullet should do enough damage won't rapid fire just run you out of bullets faster?

 

[werepossum]

If everybody has a gun, I want a tank. My life is way more important that other people's lives and I am completely trustworthy. Had I a tank, I would have gone on a killing rage only a few times in my life. And I want to be God Damned ready when you do.

You can actually own a tank. You cannot however own shells for its cannon, and I think it may have to be disabled. Same with its secondary weaponry. So if it makes you feel better, go for it. You'll have all the defensive capabilities.

But if the goal is to ensure a crazy person can't kill too many people before he's taken out, there's really no need to spend much time on such exotic weapons. A 50 cal of most variants (all?) is unfit for a massacre. A machine gun could be, but simple automatic rifles are barely more lethal than another (I understand soldiers regularly don't bother using the rapid fire). Silencers make crimes easier in some ways, but they make concealing a weapon harder. They could make people living near gun ranges less annoyed if they were allowed.Certainly being untrained and given a pistol to carry around is a really silly idea, but to require training the danger (and you know this will happen) is that the training becomes more stringent over time; gun-grabbers would use it as a way to disarm people with increasingly difficult requirements to be met.

Fully automatics make massacres MUCH easier by filling an area with bullets before people can scatter or react. Ditto with suppressors, which make it much harder to locate the firing point. With Barretts the concern is the extreme range (lethal to five miles, and actually used to snipe from Taiwan to the mainland, twenty miles, at troop concentrations, though without success) and its ability to overcome many backstops capable of stopping most rounds.

Silencers really don't make committing crimes much easier. The silencer effect you see in the movies GROSSLY overestimates their effectiveness. Pretty much they take a gunshot that is incredibly loud and make it only really really loud.

I dunno. My first engineering job was for a survivalist. He owned many suppressors and designed suppressors, and some were quite effective. He once emptied a magazine of subsonic 5.56mm AP just outside the shop door and I heard the action cycling and the rounds striking the 1/4" plate, but not really the gunshots. (I'm assuming it was subsonic because I could not hear the sharp crack of a supersonic round, it's not like he confided in me either way.) Either the action cycling and/or the rounds striking were louder than the muzzle report, or it just blended into the other sounds so as not to be discernable as a separate sound. That particular suppressor was not much more than 10" - 12" long and maybe 4" diameter if memory serves (been thirty years) and I did not know he had fired the rifle until he brought the riddled steel plate back in.

 

[schneiderguy]

http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1

San Diego declined to appeal the case.

 

[Fenixgoon]

http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1

San Diego declined to appeal the case.

must....apply...for CCW