9th Circuit issues 2A gun sales ruling

[AMT]

Although this is GREAT news, you know that the anti-looney's wont let it go. Especially with Bloomberg $$$ backing.

Hopefully this sets a precedence with the rest of the states.

And, hopefully it makes a statement to politician to BACK OFF trying to take away any of our RIGHTS under the Constitution of the United States!!!

 

[billdeserthills]

Well now that we are all gun dealers, I can't wait to get my discount!

 

[ob1]

P.S. We can always hope though. ... And vote.

Yes there is always that. Problem is, that hasn't been working out for us very well as of late. I keep hoping that our political system hasn't been corrupted so far that voting is now pointless. I find less cause for encouragement as time goes by. This 9th circus hiccup is certainly not the vanguard of a new enlightenment on their part, nor can we expect one from their ilk.....
Antonin Scalia..where are you...

 

[PiratePast40]

Bad news.
BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules against CCW, Peruta in 2nd Amendment carry case (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-against-peruta/)

 

[nammac]

Bad news.
BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules against CCW, Peruta in 2nd Amendment carry case (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-against-peruta/)

Yup, they say that concealed carry in public is not covered by the Second Amendment... Thus giving them the ability to deny application that do not prove you are in immediate danger...

Further trampling of the sheeples rights.... Wonder if irresponsible journalism, or falsified journalism will be subjects to similar scrutiny, regulation and denial...

 

[PiratePast40]

Wonder what that will mean to "shall issue" states?

This going to SCOTUS sounds like a losing situation for us. if they don't take the case, the lower court decisions stand. If they do take the case, it seems like a left leaning verdict is more probable than not.

 

[nammac]

Personaly, I think we should be prepared to follow the advice of our Founding Fathers and ignoring any law that is unjust....

 

[Diamondback]

Wonder what that will mean to "shall issue" states?

This going to SCOTUS sounds like a losing situation for us. if they don't take the case, the lower court decisions stand. If they do take the case, it seems like a left leaning verdict is more probable than not.

If the current "one vacant seat" holds until the hearing, 4-4, lower court ruling stands.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Personaly, I think we should be prepared to follow the advice of our Founding Fathers and ignoring any law that is unjust....

And to take it further then that, we the people have the right to reject any and all unjust laws, and we have the responsibility to remove from positions of power, those that would subject us to such laws! To include our LEO's, judges, congressmen. and senators! We also have the fundamental right to self preservation by what ever means available, regardless of what the laws of man determine! Time to use the power of the people!

 

[Diamondback]

Addendum to prior, it depends on what Anthony Kennedy was drinking, snorting or shooting up the night before if he makes it a 4-4 or a 5-3 the wrong way.

I'm convinced SCOTUS justices need weekly drug testing and daily breathalyzers before they report for work, with a failed drug test meaning immediate removal.

 

[kilimanjaro]

What will it mean for 'shall issue' states? Not a thing, until, say, a legislature turns wobbly and revises the law, or an initiative gets enough signatures to add 'good cause' requirements.

The left could easily demagogue this issue and ram an initiative through the voters. We've already seen how simple that is here in Washington.

 

[nammac]

What will it mean for 'shall issue' states? Not a thing, until, say, a legislature turns wobbly and revises the law, or an initiative gets enough signatures to add 'good cause' requirements.

The left could easily demagogue this issue and ram an initiative through the voters. We've already seen how simple that is here in Washington.

And in Oregon it would have an "Emergency" clause attached to keep it beyond reach of the voters...

Me thinks our state governments are running a bit tyrannical and need a dose of correction...

We either need to vote them out, or remove them physically... I'd prefer the former, but most likely the latter will be the reality... Unfortunately...

Self serving public servents...

 

[kilimanjaro]

When it comes time to remove them physically, if ever, those who did not vote, or refused to vote, when they could have done so and helped ensure that perhaps we never had to go through what we just went through, had damn well better not expect the rest of us to respect their positions after it's all over.

We're going to have to ensure such an event does not occur again. Some ways to do that could be requiring the electorate to vote, raising the minimum age to vote to 28 or 30 years of age, property and income requirements, things like that.

 

[Diamondback]

Or at least restrict the vote to actual *taxpayers*. Say, only property owners get to vote on levies, for one part.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I say remove them by force! They have all ready established the position of anti constitution and B.O.R. so they are guilty of Treason, and should be dealt with proportionally to those crimes! TREASON is a capital crime, they would do well to remember that! I bet we would see a full scale mass exodus if we started hanging them on the front steps of a states capital!

 

[2506]

When it comes time to remove them physically, if ever, those who did not vote, or refused to vote, when they could have done so and helped ensure that perhaps we never had to go through what we just went through, had damn well better not expect the rest of us to respect their positions after it's all over.

We're going to have to ensure such an event does not occur again. Some ways to do that could be requiring the electorate to vote, raising the minimum age to vote to 28 or 30 years of age, property and income requirements, things like that.

Except for that whole 24th amendment thingy....

 

[PiratePast40]

Hearing a lot of "I'm not going to vote so I can't be held responsible" comments this year. Isn't that the same as sitting idly by while a crime is being committed?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
Edmund Burke

 

[kilimanjaro]

Except for that whole 24th amendment thingy....

That's the Poll Tax amendment, which is good, we can get around that with other requirements, such as age or employment.

 

[nammac]

When it comes time to remove them physically, if ever, those who did not vote, or refused to vote, when they could have done so and helped ensure that perhaps we never had to go through what we just went through, had damn well better not expect the rest of us to respect their positions after it's all over.

We're going to have to ensure such an event does not occur again. Some ways to do that could be requiring the electorate to vote, raising the minimum age to vote to 28 or 30 years of age, property and income requirements, things like that.

Some countries impose fines if you do not participate in the voting process... In Oregon that'd be easy to do, just tie it to motovoter.... "Hey you didn't vote last election... That'll be $250.00 plus your drivers license renewal fee".

 

[nammac]

Except for that whole 24th amendment thingy....

Would be a non/participation fine, not a poll tax... Which was a tax for the privilege to vote.