Posted on 06/09/2016 8:54:06 AM PDT by jazusamo
Mea culpa.
Regarding my previous post, in my haste to make post I overlooked that this is a state law, not a federal issue.
It’s ultimately up to California voters whether they want to conceal carry or not.
Citizens: Ninth Court, you’re fired!
Your replacements will be picked randomly from the phone book - the phone book from the reddest part of Texas.
This gun issue keeps coming back to me.
Yes, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of a state gun control law. But the referenced article indicates the gun rights of Americans, not just Californians.
So are federal judges attempting to legislate this gun control law from the bench for all Americans, the feds not having the constitutional authority to make such a law imo?
Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines as well.
Open carry is clearly constitutional but many chose CCW to avoid, among other things, unduly alarming the citizenry.
There have been a number of incidents around the country, to include CA, where the right to open carry has been disputed by LEOs as a form of “disorderly conduct.”
If you deny CCW, it seems that you are, in effect, mandating open carry if a person chooses to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
If the sheriff or local pols or police then/continue to infringe on open carry... Hello lawsuit???
The Ninth Circuit sh*ts the bed again.
No surprise.
It’ll be overturned at the USSC.
IOW, if it is not in the Constitution, the states and you have it and the federal government does not have it as confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
So basically the 9th. Circus can go pound sand, however, based on that then, the states can ban CCW’s?
I'm in the same boat, although I do have a permit which is good for another five months. I applied during a two week period during which my sheriff recognized the original Peruta decision before it was officially appealed.
I have no idea what I will face when I apply for renewal. But I am certainly too old to take a beating and too tired to run.
The Constitution creates and limits the central government to only those powers delegated by the Constitution. Outside of actual constitutional limitations against the states, which are few, the state are sovereign, as confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is not only the right but the duty of states to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny.
All of that to say, yes, states can legally ban unconstitutional CCW’s and every other unconstitutional federal act. It is the feds who are acting illegally. The states have the moral and legal high ground. But to do it right, the states must give notice and explain why the federal act is unconstitutional - in most cases, not too difficult.
Here’s the rub - what it always comes down to - money and economic dependency. The underlying issue with the states is becoming economically independent of the feds. Most state governors don’t want to go there unfortunately but its way past time. Our country was founded on the idea of freedom and INDEPENDENCE and the states need to get back to that. Again the states have the legal and moral high ground of the Constitution against illegal and unconstitutional federal acts.
Depending on the fed’s is the state’s downfall. If the fed says jump the state asks how high?
Bingo.
The states are stupid. The feds are bankrupt. Any state could become more financially healthy than the feds almost immediately especially if they stick to the rules of small, limited government and free market economics.
Whatever state did that would draw millions who, given the chance, will always vote with their feet for freedom over tyranny.
I think most if not all states constitutions mandate they have a balanced budget. I guess part of that budget includes federal funds.
That is a sad excuse for acquiescing to tyranny.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.